4 ms·

Eh, but we should not leave people without basics of civilization. Yes, it’s a subsidy, but benefits outweigh hoarding of wealth.

jeffbee 2y ago
But we wouldn't have been "leaving" anyone. All this garbage was built in the 1970s because we incentivized it with subsidized roads and utilities. If we hadn't established those subsidies, all of these people would have lived in the established towns of Jackson or Ione, upon which they are totally dependent anyway.
- fooker 2y ago
  > all of these people would have lived in the established towns And I assume your food would be conjured magically?
  - jeffbee 2y ago
    None of the people in the area to which I referred are undertaking anything productive. Food comes from farms, like always.
    - b112 2y ago
      Which are in rural areas. Which means the lines have to go there. Which means they pass less rural area to get there. Rural areas aren't just a farm all by itself. Farmers need schools, stores, supplies, workers, you know, rural areas. As well, when we electrified our nations, most people lived on farms. At the start of the 20th, as an example, most Canadians lived in rural areas. The reverse is now true. This conversation is absurd. Hydro Quebec runs power lines through areas far more rural than California, through weather more severe and wide ranging, over greater distances, with more wild land, and just as much danger of fire. It does so at the cheapest rates, shows a profit, maintaining its lines and clearing vegetation. PG&E is a pathetic company, and if people look outside of California, you can see how cheap rural electrification is Really, cities cost more to electrify. Burying lines is mega expensive, stringing power lines on poles os quiet cost effective. You can easily run miles of lines, for the cost of a crew digging up a street and repaving. Lastly, rural people pay for hookups. Each house often pays thousands per pole.
      - jeffbee 2y ago
        Out of context Canadians are ... out of context. We are discussing utilities in California. California and Quebec could not be more different in terms of climate and fire risk. I can't wait for you to justify the claim that fire risk is the same in California and Quebec. Every place in Quebec can generally expect precipitation every other day on average and the normal number of consecutive dry days in California every year would shatter the same record in Quebec.
        b112 2y ago
        Quebec is 4x as large as California, has far more forested land, and is often very dry in late summer. It also has massive snowstorms, ice storms, which bring down vegetation, and ranges from -40F up to 100F yearly, depending. We can nitpick on specifics, but by no means is California more rural, or more forested. Quebec is also far less populous, and has a far more hostile environment. Hydro Quebec does well, because vegetation is cleared, maintenance is performed, and corners aren't cut. Unlike PG&E.
        jeffbee 2y ago
        > Quebec is also far less populous Isn't this my point? It is practical to punch transmission lines through any place. It is much more difficult, risky, and costly to maintain a fractal distribution network to individual customers in certain places due to geography and climate. If you parachute randomly into Quebec you'd be walking for a month before you met anyone. Same is not true in California.
        b112 2y ago
        Not really. Less populous can also mean more rural, and that was my point. You talk about houses in the middle of no-where, and Quebec has that in spades. And it's not expensive, it doesn't cost, it's revenue generating, and not part of the problem. If Quebec can do it, generate massive profits, and have mega-low rates, and do rural far better than California, then "rural" isn't the issue.
        2y ago

jeffbee 2y ago

But we wouldn't have been "leaving" anyone. All this garbage was built in the 1970s because we incentivized it with subsidized roads and utilities. If we hadn't established those subsidies, all of these people would have lived in the established towns of Jackson or Ione, upon which they are totally dependent anyway.

fooker 2y ago
> all of these people would have lived in the established towns And I assume your food would be conjured magically?
- jeffbee 2y ago
  None of the people in the area to which I referred are undertaking anything productive. Food comes from farms, like always.
  - b112 2y ago
    Which are in rural areas. Which means the lines have to go there. Which means they pass less rural area to get there. Rural areas aren't just a farm all by itself. Farmers need schools, stores, supplies, workers, you know, rural areas. As well, when we electrified our nations, most people lived on farms. At the start of the 20th, as an example, most Canadians lived in rural areas. The reverse is now true. This conversation is absurd. Hydro Quebec runs power lines through areas far more rural than California, through weather more severe and wide ranging, over greater distances, with more wild land, and just as much danger of fire. It does so at the cheapest rates, shows a profit, maintaining its lines and clearing vegetation. PG&E is a pathetic company, and if people look outside of California, you can see how cheap rural electrification is Really, cities cost more to electrify. Burying lines is mega expensive, stringing power lines on poles os quiet cost effective. You can easily run miles of lines, for the cost of a crew digging up a street and repaving. Lastly, rural people pay for hookups. Each house often pays thousands per pole.
    - jeffbee 2y ago
      Out of context Canadians are ... out of context. We are discussing utilities in California. California and Quebec could not be more different in terms of climate and fire risk. I can't wait for you to justify the claim that fire risk is the same in California and Quebec. Every place in Quebec can generally expect precipitation every other day on average and the normal number of consecutive dry days in California every year would shatter the same record in Quebec.
      - b112 2y ago
        Quebec is 4x as large as California, has far more forested land, and is often very dry in late summer. It also has massive snowstorms, ice storms, which bring down vegetation, and ranges from -40F up to 100F yearly, depending. We can nitpick on specifics, but by no means is California more rural, or more forested. Quebec is also far less populous, and has a far more hostile environment. Hydro Quebec does well, because vegetation is cleared, maintenance is performed, and corners aren't cut. Unlike PG&E.
        jeffbee 2y ago
        > Quebec is also far less populous Isn't this my point? It is practical to punch transmission lines through any place. It is much more difficult, risky, and costly to maintain a fractal distribution network to individual customers in certain places due to geography and climate. If you parachute randomly into Quebec you'd be walking for a month before you met anyone. Same is not true in California.
        b112 2y ago
        Not really. Less populous can also mean more rural, and that was my point. You talk about houses in the middle of no-where, and Quebec has that in spades. And it's not expensive, it doesn't cost, it's revenue generating, and not part of the problem. If Quebec can do it, generate massive profits, and have mega-low rates, and do rural far better than California, then "rural" isn't the issue.
        2y ago