4 ms·
Electricity has always had two parts: production and distribution. The problem with most places is that distribution is a natural monopoly: you don't want two
by e63f67dd-065b 3y ago
Electricity has always had two parts: production and distribution.
The problem with most places is that distribution is a natural monopoly: you don't want two or more lets of wires running to every house, so distribution monopolies are a natural consequence.
Production, however, is different; there's much more competition, which means that competitive pressure drives prices down.
Over time, distribution monopolies and other parties get more and more intertwined as they capture each other. The state uses distributors to levy taxes, unions parasitise the distributors and seek rents from their customers, companies capture regulators who set their prices, and that's why distribution is costly.
The beauty of rooftop solar is that you can completely disconnect yourself from the grid and thus the politics that drives prices up. It is true that giant solar farms in the desert and grid-scale batteries are more efficient, but they're captured and don't act in the customer's best interest.
In a world where distribution monopolies don't charge more than cost, where distributors are not agents of the state, rooftop solar would be more expensive than grid solar, but that's not the world we live in.
- yummypaint 3y agoPart of being a distribution monopoly is delivering power to everyone, not just places where it's profitable. People in rural areas are able to afford grid electricity because the disproportionate cost of delivering power to them is subsidized by people living in cities paying the same rates. Rooftop solar being cheaper overall than a grid connection for some people isn't that surprising. There are lots of other costs and externalities associated with running a grid that don't need to be contemplated for off grid home solar.
- e63f67dd-065b 3y agoRural electrification subsidies distort the cost of living in the middle of nowhere. This is the same problem as low-density suburban housing: the cost of their infrastructure far exceeds their taxes, so they're subsidised by urban core where infrastructure costs are low. This is an even better argument against delivering power to everyone, all the time.
- yummypaint 3y agoElectricity should be delivered to everyone, just like mail. It's not just a product, it's an essential public good.
- raggles 3y agoIn my country there is no obligation for power distributors to connect new customers to the grid if it is uneconomical. Those people are expected to sort their own off-grid installation. Stringing 5km+ of conductor for one customer makes no sense at all. In fact, many distributors are actively paying a small number of (willing) customers to install off-grid installations so their grid connection can be decommissioned as it saves everyone money.
- _aavaa_ 3y agoAround here if you live in the middle of nowhere you’re on a septic tank system and not connected to a sewage system It is unrealistic to expect the same amenities regardless of where you live.
- yummypaint 3y agoA septic tank provides for safe and sanitary disposal of waste. The purpose of such sanitation is to prevent cholera outbreaks etc. That requirement is satisfied.
- _aavaa_ 3y agoBut it is not the same as being hooked up to a sewage system. Nor are the houses always hooked up to a water main. And instead rely on wells. The point is that they don’t have the same services, and it would incredibly expensive to provide them. The same for electricity.
- robocat 3y agoThey argument makes less sense now that rural people can install their own solar/wind power supply.
- nine_k 3y ago> you don't want two or more lets of wires running to every house I do! I do! Very much like I do like several fiber optic cables running to the building where I live, for me to choose from. The problem is. of course, that it's too expensive to afford in most places, and definitely too expensive in low-density suburbia, where rooftop solar makes most sense.
- e63f67dd-065b 3y agoI think redundant infrastructure makes sense in dense urban areas for fibre, but probably not stuff like water and sewage. I've read many proposals for introducing market pressure into natural monopolies, but I haven't been convinced by any of them.