I've read some interesting posts from people wanting to understand how 'their' electricity gets to their home, and what losses and costs are incurred along the way.
When I invested in Kirk Hill, I decided that this wasn't the right approach, despite all the marketing which suggests how 'your power needs' might be met by an investment in the project.
Step one: electrons
Replacing fossil fuels starts with home-grown electrons. Where I live, we need more of them. Probably of the order of 10-15 times more of them if you factor in the need to grow renewables plus the need to displace fossil fuels in parts of the economy not currently served by electricity.
Pretty well all the electrons my investment creates serves this end, and, right now, their main impact is to displace the burning of fossil fuels. This is displacement that would not have occurred now, when it matters most, if me and my fellow ripple investors had not acted when they did.
So that's a pretty good win out of the box.
Step two: power to my house when I want it.
The reality is that the power that comes to my house is generated by precisely the same mix that supplies the house next door with no Ripple ownership. This is the difference between Ripple investors and those with home solar and batteries. How do I deal with this?
Well. It's pretty simple. It doesn't matter where the electrons my investment generated get used up. A nun in Nuneaton could find her kettle powered by more of them than I'll ever see. Her cuppa is 'greener' than mine as a result.
But I've won all the same, because my actions caused less greenhouse gas emissions. The reduction is the same, no matter whose kettle feels the benefit.
The deterioration in the mix of gases in my air has been slowed in exactly the same way than had I been able to place renewable solutions directly on our house.
Summary
It doesn't matter who consumes your green energy. The only thing that matters is that, thanks to your action, fossil fuel burning was displaced, and our atmosphere spared a tiny but important change.
Final thought
If, previously, people within 50 miles were not fully using renewable power, but, thanks to Kirk Hill, that fraction has reduced, then this is the best win. Transmission costs eat into effectiveness. It is better that the fossil fuel displacement happens as locally as possible. Over time, the dynamics of where electrons should be sent to maximise effectiveness at global warming mitigation will change... but just wanted to plant an idea which saves people from complicated spreadsheets modelling electron transportation losses across the grid!