I used to have a wooden cabin that was kind of on the edge of the forest. It did get municipal electricity and running water (which wasn't drinkable, it came from a nearby creek).
For waste, you have a septic tank, you get bottled water from the store next village (and gas canisters for cooking).
For garbage, we needed to collect it and take it to a recycling point a couple km away every week or so.
It was a surprisingly manageable level of hassle, and this is how people used to live not so long ago outside of cities.
You could've gotten far more automated with things like solar, greywater recycling etc.
Going totally off grid is likely very hard, but reducing your dependence on civilization to a once a week trip is pretty manageable.
Politicians need votes to remain in power. They lose votes if electricity is expensive. Lower demand and therefore low revenue in the face of fixed grid maintenance costs mean prices have to rise. Higher costs to voters terrifies politicians.
The politicians do get paid by captured corporate interests though. And some of those are energy generation interests. Until solar companies captured some of that interest, solar subsidies and cost remained high and unsupported by regulatory interests - when capture is there regulatory interest support the alternative power.
Sometimes these captured interests can even block and harm progress that's better for society. I'm sure I don't have to break this down for you further. Surely you can identify examples.
Homeowners having the ability to produce their own energy means they get to opt out of capitalist markets and socialist sharing systems.
It’s similar to how the British empire hated subsistence farming, and always wanted colonial subjects to be economically interacting with either trading companies or the state apparatus.
> Homeowners having the ability to produce their own energy means they get to opt out of capitalist markets and socialist sharing systems.
All well and good, provided the homeowner opts out of the system. Part of the problem comes when the grid connection is not severed. Using it as a backup option (at the same time as other people, for when the weather is bad) or demanding the grid takes their excess production are counter-productive to the system as a whole.
It's crazy to think that thanks to Starlink, EVs, renewables, a small-ish rural community could become almost independent.
Just missing water and sewage and garbage/recycling, but a rural community does gain some independence via those things you mentioned.
I used to have a wooden cabin that was kind of on the edge of the forest. It did get municipal electricity and running water (which wasn't drinkable, it came from a nearby creek).
For waste, you have a septic tank, you get bottled water from the store next village (and gas canisters for cooking).
For garbage, we needed to collect it and take it to a recycling point a couple km away every week or so.
It was a surprisingly manageable level of hassle, and this is how people used to live not so long ago outside of cities.
You could've gotten far more automated with things like solar, greywater recycling etc.
Going totally off grid is likely very hard, but reducing your dependence on civilization to a once a week trip is pretty manageable.
1 reply →
Nah, it's about power (heh!).
Politicians need votes to remain in power. They lose votes if electricity is expensive. Lower demand and therefore low revenue in the face of fixed grid maintenance costs mean prices have to rise. Higher costs to voters terrifies politicians.
The politicians do get paid by captured corporate interests though. And some of those are energy generation interests. Until solar companies captured some of that interest, solar subsidies and cost remained high and unsupported by regulatory interests - when capture is there regulatory interest support the alternative power.
Sometimes these captured interests can even block and harm progress that's better for society. I'm sure I don't have to break this down for you further. Surely you can identify examples.
Fair point
Homeowners having the ability to produce their own energy means they get to opt out of capitalist markets and socialist sharing systems.
It’s similar to how the British empire hated subsistence farming, and always wanted colonial subjects to be economically interacting with either trading companies or the state apparatus.
> Homeowners having the ability to produce their own energy means they get to opt out of capitalist markets and socialist sharing systems.
All well and good, provided the homeowner opts out of the system. Part of the problem comes when the grid connection is not severed. Using it as a backup option (at the same time as other people, for when the weather is bad) or demanding the grid takes their excess production are counter-productive to the system as a whole.