I’m struggling to understand the logic of the comparison on this page: https://rippleenergy.com/references
Ripple is up to 65% cheaper than installing rooftop solar
Based on costs set out in the Energy Savings Trust’s Rooftop Solar Calculator. The cost of installing a 3.5kWp solar PV system on the roof of a south west facing house in London is £4,788. This would generate 3,069kWh per year. The cost of purchasing 957 watts of a wind farm with Ripple, which would generate 3,069kWh per year is £1,689. This is 65% cheaper than the solar installation costs.
My understanding is that investing in Ripple reduces the wholesale cost of electricity - but that’s only about 35% of my electricity bill. In the above example, my own solar panels would actually generate 3,068kWh per year and save me 100% of the cost of that energy generation - not just the wholesale cost.
Following this through to it’s logical conclusion, and pretending that 3,068 kWh represented 100% of my annual consumption. With my own solar panels, my electricity bill would only consist of the standing charge (pretty minimal). But with Ripple’s energy, I’d still be paying roughly 65% of my previous energy bill for consumption.
Have I misunderstood this completely?