Energy companies really hate small renewables. They love nuclear and fossil fuels. Why? Renewables can be deployed in decentralised ways. That hurts their bottom line as they get reduced to taking care of distribution through their grids. But they want to control the input, not the distribution. They have focused on centralising electricity generation. That way they can simply make more money. That's why they oppose or actively try to fight microgrid solutions. Decentralisation is bad for them.
@jwildeboer
The UK national Grid company is distinct from the energy suppliers.
Now, they clearly know them and talk to them, as they must.
@Photo55 There are differences per country, which is why I lumped them all together as "energy companies". The main point is that grids were designed with an architecture that relied on limited inputs and delivery to many endpoints. Upgrading that to a more flexible grid that can accept and balance many inputs and outputs is something that was perfectly predictable but most grid companies have stalled and delayed and the big producers are not unhappy about that ;)
@jwildeboer agree on the design.
We had an enormous NIMBY fuss about building the Grid about when I was born, and extensions nowadays repeat it.
But progress is being made.
Adding big batteries each side of pinch points should help as well. Naturally we have NIMBYs and very distant activists opposing those. But they are ticking upwards.
@jwildeboer @Photo55 it is exactly the same as with the successful boycot of fibre to the home by internet providers. There is actually near-zero need for big data-centers

@StOnSoftware @jwildeboer My daughter has fibre to the home. We still have fibre to the cabinet, about 20m away. In some bits of the interior of the county I think some people still have a km of copper. The future is here, but not evenly spread.

Copper is valuable enough to be sought for recovery, to make car motors etc.

Data centres, tend to agree. Keeping a note of the solution to common questions would surely be better than reinventing wheels.

@Photo55 Did you know that ADSL (Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line), often combined with no simple way to get a static IP address is kind of a gentlemen's agreement between telcos everywhere since at least 20 years to discourage people from offering internet services from home? That SDSL (Symmetric Digital Subscriber Line) is typically reserver for expensive business connections but runs on the same infrastructure? Centralisation goes deep, once you start looking ...

@jwildeboer
I offer services from home over ADSL.
Low volume, to be sure.
Used to have ISDN
ADSL gives me a faster down speed, which is most of my traffic than I'd have over symmetric, on the same kit.

We've not gone to IPV6 so IP addresses are limited, one could do large-scale NAT but that's another layer of complication - and more computing.

With 9 billion of us, one of those or another solution will be required, meanwhile my limited needs are covered.