connection to the national grid

hi guys
im hoping someone on here can help me out.we bought a house in lincolnshire that is not hooked up to the national grid when we contacted western elect they quoted us 60,000 to connect us.is there other comany,s out there that can do the connection or has it gat to be done throu western elect.
rob
--
furby2009


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
furby2009 wrote:

How much!!?
How far are you from the nearest low or medium voltage power cable (240V (hint: road with houses and/or streetlamps) - or an 11kV feed (rural will be overhead a lot of the time, 3 wires, probably wooden pole but with moderately substantial insulators).
--
Tim Watts

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Watts wrote:

No. When I had my bit undergrounded the man said 'Let's put it this way: we are not installing any more overhead 11KV lines'
I think 33KV they will, but not 11KV.
I am not sure about 240V..but they dont run that very far if they can..too lossy.
--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
furby2009 wrote:

you are facing a monopoly.
However te price is negotiable and furthermore, there is a lot you can DIY. If you trench the place and prepare a transformer pad, and, if you have access to the land over which the cables will come, trench that as well, it could be a lot less.
However it is when all is said and done a cost we simply take for granted that is actually not that unfair.
There is usually weeks of legal shit to do before you string cables over or under someone else's land, then there is a lot of very safety conscious wiring and cable laying, testing and then finally a disconnection, isolation and reconnection of part of the local grid, which if prolonged may need other people to be equipped with generators.
Not to mention possible road closures etc.
Cost me nearly £20 grand just to get over an 11KV line running over the roof.. the actual cost was £30k but the grid were happy to toss in £12k as part of their 'lets get rid of all this 11KV overhead' budget. They don't like it - too prone to wind and tree damage.
So have a long talk with them and see how to get the price down. But you wont get it done for 5k for sure.
But it should add 60k to the house value anyway.

--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/03/2012 14:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Not necessarily. There is now the concept of "competition in connections" for works classified as contestable (new plant and equipment, basically). For the DNO in question see
http://www.westernpower.co.uk/Use-of-System-Charges/Charging-statements/Connections -(1)/Competition.aspx
That said, I've no idea how well this works in practice, or whether the OP could actually make a saving. It's got to be worth investigating though.

Yes, and agreed. Having got a second quotation could contribute significantly to the negotiation.
--
Andy

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"furby2009" wrote in message

Not an unusual quandary if very isolated. I hope the price you paid for the house reflected it's lack of power. You can buy a decent generator and a lot of red diesel for 60K
AWEM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Andrew Mawson wrote:

One of the chaps who quoted for my solar PV had a customer in a similar situation. He had been quoted so much for connecting his Grand Design to the grid that he decided on principle that he would not pay.
Instead he went for a massive PV array, together with substantial battery system. It hadn't been fully commissioned at the time, and I don't think it was actually an economic solution, but he was apparently in a position to afford it.
Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
snipped-for-privacy@cdixon.me.uk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Chris J Dixon wrote:

You need 6 months of batteries to tide you over the winter. At 1kw average household drain, that's just under 5MWhrs. a truck battery of 80 Ah is about a kilowatt hour
So you only need about 5,000 of them.
Shouldn't cost more than half a million quid to replace every 5 years.
Cheap compared with getting a grid connection laid in.
Obviously.
That's why every body is doing it.
Instead of building power stations
--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

In the real world, CIT have an array doing enough electrical power to run a house that cost about £1.00 per Kwh a few years ago. A roof covered in solar cells and a shed full of milk float batteries to last them overnight and through dull periods. No heating of any sort, not even a kettle, just lights, TV and suchlike.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Williamson wrote:

Sorry, that's CAT, the Centre for Alternative Technology, in Wales.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/03/2012 17:31, John Williamson wrote:

ISTR that they also get a few kW from being at the bottom of a quarry with a reasonable water supply a couple of hundred feet above.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Newshound wrote:

As well as some wind pumping. It's an interesting place to visit, even if all it proves is that alternative energy can't support our current way of life, and the alternatives aren't as nice to live with. Unless we get the nukes going, that's what we're all going to get, though.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Williamson wrote

Nope, there is enough coal to last for hundreds of years more.
Corse nukes are much better if you care about atmospheric CO2 and radioactive stuff in the air.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/03/2012 22:24, Rod Speed wrote:

If I were that bothered about radiation (I'm not), 90% of my lifetime dose has come from natural background, only 10% from 40-odd years as a classified worker in the nuclear industry.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Newshound wrote

Yeah, I meant that coal fired power stations put much more radioactivity in the air than nukes do, just because of the radioactive materials in the coal.
The original of mine was a bit cryptic.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rod Speed wrote:

well that is not a lot compared with cosmic rays and solar emissions. The most dangerous and highest incidence of cancer comes from the gamma rays emitted by the sun. Oh at that wavelength we call them sunlight, and the effect sunburn, but its virtually the same effect as being exposed to radiation levels you might see a mile or two away from an exploding atom bomb. Or inside Fukushima containment for a week with no suit on.
The only difference is that the harder gamma of radioactivity penetrates deeper and the cancers form inside, as well as outside, the body.
Radiation induced cancers kill about 3000 people a year in the UK. 2990 of them are from exposure to the sun.
The others are from if anything, exposure to natural radiation, and that's not a sure bet either..
Approximately zero are from exposure to nuclear power or its waste products.

--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Natural Philosopher wrote

Sure, but plenty whine about what nukes add to the atmosphere radiation wise without realising that coal fire power stations are MUCH worse in that regard.
And many dont realise that those who ever fly internationally get a hell of a lot more exposure at altitude to 'radiation' than you get with routine X rays etc now too.
Nukes just arent a problem, even for those who work there unless they go bang like with Fukashima or Chernobyle.
Even 3 Mile Island was nothing like what a coal fired power station adds to the atmosphere.

Sure, particularly with those stupid enough to be obsessed with a tan etc or just work outside much of the time.

That last is much less clear yet. And its very far from clear what Fukushima has done food and water contamination wise yet.

Sure, but its a relatively minor effect even with international airline pilots etc that get a lot more exposure than people on the ground.

And its much worse than that in places like Australia.

Thats very geographical. And even with the worst of that, you dont see those areas abandoned, just some precautions taken.

Even for those who work in those power stations.
Its worse with underground mining of uranium etc tho.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Not.
The latest thinking about cancers concern exposure to pollutants like diesel and diesel fumes. It's been another Big Tobacco Co type of legal shenanigans keeping it secret.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Weatherlawyer wrote:

Not what?

Those are the other 157,000 cancers deaths a year. The 3000 figure is skin melanomas ALONE... which are as to sunlight what lung cancer is to smoking.
Scare yourself with some FACTS
http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/skin/?script=true
--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Newshound wrote:

90% of mine came from the CAT scan I had a couple of months ago.
--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.