Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Alberta's Child
When you factor in the cost of building and maintaining infrastructure in rural areas to serve small populations, this equation may tip heavily the other way.

For very small populations, you are correct that it is not economical anywhere in the world. You can simply look at the total cost of something to determine fairly accurately how much total energy was consumed by it. There's no escaping that cost is ultimately a reflection of total energy consumption. It's very easy to determine by the higher cost that electric cars are currently less green than traditional designs. That organic apple at the grocery is more expensive because a lot of other apples were lost in production and more total energy was wasted. Almost always higher cost means more energy was consumed somewhere in its lifecycle, and more pollution was generated.

33 posted on 12/06/2016 10:33:26 AM PST by Reeses (A journey of a thousand miles begins with a government pat down.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]


To: Reeses
Right. One big challenge there is that it isn't always easy to allocate at a local level the costs of infrastructure that is financed through external sources of revenue.

Think of a town located next to an interstate highway. The highway helps facilitate the cost-efficient transportation of products to the town, but the residents of that town could never afford to pay the cost of building the highway themselves.

34 posted on 12/06/2016 10:39:27 AM PST by Alberta's Child ("Yo, bartender -- Jobu needs a refill!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson