5 ms·
Rural 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
by e63f67dd-065b 3y ago
Rural 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.