> not sure that's true

To be clear, I'm not either. But decentralisation requires sacrificing economies of scale. And total autarky is a proven failure. Between that and complete integration is probably a more-independent equilibrium for Europe. But it will require paying a price.

> In general I'm not sure if 'modern cities' are long term sustainable

Sure. Maybe. Until then, the economies that field them will call the shots. (Based on everything I've read, cities are far more sustainable than dispersed living.)

▲

jacquesm 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> But it will require paying a price.

I don't doubt that it requires paying a price. The only relevant question is whether that price is substantially lower or substantially higher than continuing on our current track. I'm open to be convinced that it is higher but I strongly believe that it is lower because with increased fragility you're playing the dice and one day they'll come up in a way that hurts you. The more people there will be in those baskets that harder it will hurt.

As for the future of cities: the internet has given us one thing: independence from having to go to cities to work. Combine that with the ridiculous energy expense on commuting and it seems like a complete no-brainer that we should just stop doing that. COVID has already shown us that this is far more possible than we ever thought it was.

▲

JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> relevant question is whether that price is substantially lower or substantially higher than continuing on our current track

It's higher than prevailing prices. And it gets higher the more autarkic and decentralised the system needs to be.

> with increased fragility you're playing the dice and one day they'll come up in a way that hurts you

Agree. It looks like insurance pricing. How much extra are your citizens willing to pay every year to reduce supply disruptions?

	▲	jacquesm 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> It's higher than prevailing prices. And it gets higher the more autarkic and decentralised the system needs to be. I don't actually think that that is true. If I look at the cost / KWh + the network costs + various subsidies you can probably supply a house for a lifetime if you the energy consumption costs for that same lifetime and spent them up front on decentralized generation + storage. It's all about the density, not so much about the cost and as the density goes up so do the complications and the costs. But if you have enough ground (which really isn't all that much) it is perfectly doable today, and probably you'll be in the black in a surprisingly low number of years. The higher the cost of oil the higher the cost of gas, and the higher the cost of gas the higher the cost per KWh (this may vary depending on where you live). > How much extra are your citizens willing to pay every year to reduce supply disruptions? That's a very good question. Probably not much until it starts to happen regularly, so I would expect that problem to solve itself over time. Energy has been a hot topic for the last decade and with every price shock it is getting easier to convince people that if they had more autonomy they would be less affected. Solar + heatpumps have exploded in Europe in the last decade and that trend has not stopped, in spite of a reduction in net metering. Ironically, the biggest stumbling blocks are the governments that want to tax energy but see no way of doing this if it is generated and consumed on the spot.