radius of the energy producing infrastructure. Since the alternative is true
and further away properties pay a higher charger.
4.2 The energy waste from producer to consumer therefore is less, as
the energy has less time, and distance, to convert into waste products such
as thermal or sound.
4.3 Distinct consideration may be necessary for those living next to
renewable energy sources, such as wind farms, as the price of clean
electricity is cheaper than that of fossil fuels once the infrastructure has
been installed. Therefore, if the local production is cheaper, the regional
charges may be reduced.
4.4 This discount may also sway public opinion to favouring
renewable energy and economically combat NIMBYism. This is currently
happening in Lincolnshire with customers of Octopus near the Skegness
windfarms being eligible for a fifty per cent discount (Octopus Energy.
n.d. b). Since this discount they claim they have “received over 20,000
requests for local wind turbines in communities” (Octopus Energy. n.d.b.
Para 3), however, there may be some inflation of statistics considering
bias. Nevertheless, the proposed discount for proximity to energy
infrastructure could be a considerable mechanism to increase public
opinion of renewables and aid the government in reaching their net zero
goals.
4.5 In Jeremy Hunts’s Autum Statement it was unveiled that “up to
£10,000 [will be deductible] off electricity bills over 10 years for those
living closest to new transmission infrastructure” (Hunt, 2023, under
Infrastructure, Housing and Planning). It must be noted that financial
compensation is a good political tool to smooth over disgruntled locals,
however, there should be additional ethical surveys of both local
residences and land to gauge the impact of this new construction.
59
Made with FlippingBook HTML5