undefined | Better HN

0 pointsrsynnott1y ago0 comments

The problem is, if cities don’t pay for that, who will? Just abandoning electricity for rural areas isn’t _really_ an option, but it would likely be uneconomic without the effective subsidy from urban areas.

0 comments

screye1y ago

Story of America. There's a reason only this continent has excessive sprawl.

Ideally, rural areas pay up. Good forcing functions for change. Maybe people move closer together (similar to European villages) or they become energy-independent (solar panels).

If that's politically untenable, then I'd like to see the cost reflected as a city2rural subsidy. Cities get enough hate in the US. I'd like explicit recognition of their generosity.

xp841y ago

I could not agree more. Hiding true costs of our choices in other things breaks the ability of the market to signal what is an economic choice.

treis1y ago

It probably is an option to go to solar & batteries these days. Especially when the liability from rural power lines is huge due to fires.

tomjakubowski1y ago

Solar would make good use of the big advantage rural has, that land is dirt cheap and space is plentiful.

maxerickson1y ago

The area I live in has utilities that service the small town population centers and a utility that services most of the outlying rural area. The rural operator is expensive, but not unaffordable.

Density including the towns is about 3.2 people per square km.

rsynnottOP1y ago

Who paid for the infra, and how old is it? If it was inherited from a prior larger utility, this is the sort of thing you can get away with, for a while, until it needs serious maintenance. But ultimately spreading the true lifetime cost of electrical infrastructure over that sort of population density without subsidy is going to lead to absurdly high prices.

maxerickson1y ago

It formed from smaller utilities ~1950. We have harsh winters and some small thunderstorms, but that's about it for weather.

Looks like people end up paying close to $0.30 per kwh. There's probably some cross subsidies coming from the state, I don't know.

rsynnottOP1y ago

Yeah, I’d be _amazed_ if that isn’t subsidised in some way, whether via direct subsidy or risk equalisation fees from bigger utilities.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

screye1y ago

Story of America. There's a reason only this continent has excessive sprawl.

Ideally, rural areas pay up. Good forcing functions for change. Maybe people move closer together (similar to European villages) or they become energy-independent (solar panels).

If that's politically untenable, then I'd like to see the cost reflected as a city2rural subsidy. Cities get enough hate in the US. I'd like explicit recognition of their generosity.

xp841y ago

I could not agree more. Hiding true costs of our choices in other things breaks the ability of the market to signal what is an economic choice.

treis1y ago

It probably is an option to go to solar & batteries these days. Especially when the liability from rural power lines is huge due to fires.

tomjakubowski1y ago

Solar would make good use of the big advantage rural has, that land is dirt cheap and space is plentiful.

maxerickson1y ago

The area I live in has utilities that service the small town population centers and a utility that services most of the outlying rural area. The rural operator is expensive, but not unaffordable.

Density including the towns is about 3.2 people per square km.

rsynnottOP1y ago

maxerickson1y ago

It formed from smaller utilities ~1950. We have harsh winters and some small thunderstorms, but that's about it for weather.

Looks like people end up paying close to $0.30 per kwh. There's probably some cross subsidies coming from the state, I don't know.

rsynnottOP1y ago

Yeah, I’d be _amazed_ if that isn’t subsidised in some way, whether via direct subsidy or risk equalisation fees from bigger utilities.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse