Hacker News Reader

Comment by e63f67dd-065b | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

Electricity should be delivered to everyone, just like mail. It's not just a product, it's an essential public good.

In 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.

Around 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.

A 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.

But 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.

They argument makes less sense now that rural people can install their own solar/wind power supply.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com