Misleading news?

[Oldgreybeard]

The arrangement the two farms came up with only worked because they are literally next door to each other (both had been owned by the same family years ago). That meant that one beefy supply could be run a couple of miles to both farms, hence the sharing of the cost. This won't work for the majority of farms, though. For example, our farm was at least three miles away from any neighbours, so if we'd needed an upgraded supply we'd have had to pay the whole cost.

There is an unfair side to this "applicant bears the whole cost" approach. A friend built a new house a few years ago, in a space at the end of an existing housing development (originally a part of two gardens). He had to pay around £25k to get a supply, as the existing supply to the estate was at maximum capacity. A couple of years after he'd forked out for the bigger transformer, etc, the farm behind his place got planning permission to build 6 houses adjacent to the existing development. They were able to get a cheap electricity supply as it had already been upgraded. Much as it deeply pissed off my friend, at him paying to get the supply ready for this development, there was nothing he could do about it, it's how the system works.

[AE-NMidlands]

The key thing is that, under the way our electricity supply system is structured, someone always needs to pay for any changes they want. Locally I know of a farm that paid around £65k to get their supply upgraded when they fitted solar panels to a couple of their barns. Seems fair enough, as they get a significant benefit from the solar panels, in the form of reduced operating cost as we as some income from energy they export.

Same goes for any business that needs an upgraded supply for any reason. If someone wants to open a bakery, for example, they are going to have to pay for an upgraded supply to run the ovens in all probability. It's just a part of the cost of setting up a business, and putting up a solar farm is just a business at the end of the day.

I'll stick my head above the parapet... I think everyone benefits from somebody investing in solar. Every single kilowatt not generated by fossil fuels is cutting global warming - and by more than 100% as there are none of the usual heat-engine thermodynamics if we ignore the manufacturing costs. People in Frinton are going to be grateful if sea-level rise doesn't wipe them out: most Welsh farmers have no worries on that account!

So my take on this is that the grid and other bits of the distribution network are national infrastructure and should therefore be publicly funded to make and keep them fit for purpose. As was said up-thread,

not upgrading infrastructure when they have had a decade of this trickling in is fecking stupid too,

so I think the costs should be shared. It's not just the small scale generators who will benefit...
A

[Oldgreybeard]

I agree with the social benefit, but the issue is whether or not giving taxpayer's money to a farmer in order for that farmer to increase his profitability (which is really what this is about in the first instance) is something that would be acceptable. I can think of a few families I know that would be incensed at the very idea, given that they are struggling and surviving courtesy of the village foodbank, because the state doesn't do enough for them as it is. As many of them are farm workers, that already have a pretty dim view of subsidies being given to farms I can see their point.

[AE-NMidlands]

I agree with the social benefit, but the issue is whether or not giving taxpayer's money to a farmer in order for that farmer to increase his profitability (which is really what this is about in the first instance) is something that would be acceptable. I can think of a few families I know that would be incensed at the very idea, given that they are struggling and surviving courtesy of the village foodbank, because the state doesn't do enough for them as it is. As many of them are farm workers, that already have a pretty dim view of subsidies being given to farms I can see their point.

but you are not just "giving it to a farmer." You are bolstering the overall network's ability to accept renewable energy.

It's absolutely wrong that wages are too low to live on, and that top-up benefits don't keep people above the poverty line. (and that progressive taxes are as low as they are.) That shouldn't stop us grabbing any renewable electrons we can. How many years is it now that dispersed sources of power have been growing? 20 probably, 15 or maybe 10 being recognised in the wider public domain.

How come that the energy distribution professionals haven't prepared for it? I know, it's that investment doesn't make money for shareholders, and that the current shower (or bunch of ****s, to quote a politician) - who have been in charge for a decade and a half - are only interested in lining their own and their friends' pockets.
A

[CrofterMannie]

There is an unfair side to this "applicant bears the whole cost" approach. A friend built a new house a few years ago, in a space at the end of an existing housing development (originally a part of two gardens). He had to pay around £25k to get a supply, as the existing supply to the estate was at maximum capacity. A couple of years after he'd forked out for the bigger transformer, etc, the farm behind his place got planning permission to build 6 houses adjacent to the existing development. They were able to get a cheap electricity supply as it had already been upgraded. Much as it deeply pissed off my friend, at him paying to get the supply ready for this development, there was nothing he could do about it, it's how the system works.

That's not how the system is supposed to work and is not my experience . If you pay for an upgrade and someone else subsequently uses it then the DNO will send them a bill for their share of the work done.

I paid for about 300m of new line to connect my house, about 5 years later someone else wanted a connection that used about 100m of the cable I'd paid for. SSE sent them a bill for about £3k and passed the money straight on to me.

[Oldgreybeard]

but you are not just "giving it to a farmer." You are bolstering the overall network's ability to accept renewable energy.

It's absolutely wrong that wages are too low to live on, and that top-up benefits don't keep people above the poverty line. (and that progressive taxes are as low as they are.) That shouldn't stop us grabbing any renewable electrons we can. How many years is it now that dispersed sources of power have been growing? 20 probably, 15 or maybe 10 being recognised in the wider public domain.

How come that the energy distribution professionals haven't prepared for it? I know, it's that investment doesn't make money for shareholders, and that the current shower (or bunch of ****s, to quote a politician) - who have been in charge for a decade and a half - are only interested in lining their own and their friends' pockets.
A

That's not how it will be perceived by many people. Dress it up anyway you like but it will still be seen as giving money to farmers by many.

We've seen the food bank use multiply by around a factor of four over the past year, very common for there to be a queue outside the village hall now. Used to be that there were often more donations than takers, but not now, the organisers have had to resort to sending out flyers and putting ads in the parish magazine for donations. This is going to get a lot worse before it gets better, I fear.

The energy distribution companies are more than ready to do any work requested, in my experience. The issues are always with the willingness (or otherwise) of people to pay the prices they charge and very often with landowners being bloody awkward about granting consents. That's a really big issue in rural areas. Farmers absolutely do not want poles across their land, the things are a complete PITA, especially with the size of modern farm machinery. The two farms locally that cooperated opted to have their cable trenched, massively more expensive than stringing it from poles (maybe three to four times more costly) but they did all the groundworks with their own kit, which brought the cost down.

[Oldgreybeard]

There is an unfair side to this "applicant bears the whole cost" approach. A friend built a new house a few years ago, in a space at the end of an existing housing development (originally a part of two gardens). He had to pay around £25k to get a supply, as the existing supply to the estate was at maximum capacity. A couple of years after he'd forked out for the bigger transformer, etc, the farm behind his place got planning permission to build 6 houses adjacent to the existing development. They were able to get a cheap electricity supply as it had already been upgraded. Much as it deeply pissed off my friend, at him paying to get the supply ready for this development, there was nothing he could do about it, it's how the system works.

That's not how the system is supposed to work and is not my experience . If you pay for an upgrade and someone else subsequently uses it then the DNO will send them a bill for their share of the work done.

I paid for about 300m of new line to connect my house, about 5 years later someone else wanted a connection that used about 100m of the cable I'd paid for. SSE sent them a bill for about £3k and passed the money straight on to me.

Curious, as this was also SSE, back then it was SSE PD as the DNO. AFAIK he never got a penny back from SSE PD, despite him complaining that the new transformer he'd paid for was the enabler for the farmer getting PP for the new houses.