this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2025
1734 points (96.0% liked)

Microblog Memes

7495 readers
3635 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] eestileib@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

They've got economist-brain and view everything as a money thing, which is fucked up and a problem.

But negative net demand (the thing "negative cost" is signaling) is a pain in the ass, because you either need to shut off the panels from the grid, find some very high-capacity and high-throughput storage, or blow out your power grid.

Like some hydroelectric dams in Germany get run backwards, pumping water back up behind the wall. I think there are pilot projects to pump air into old mines to build up a pressure buffer. Grid-scale batteries just aren't there yet.

Solar is good for things where the power demand is cumulative and relatively insensitive to variation over time (like, say, salt pond evaporation, but you don't actually need panels for that). It's also good for insolation-sensitive demand (like air conditioning).

Turns out distributed rooftop solar makes more sense given our current grid than big solar farms out in the desert (California built one, it was not a good use of money).

It's not great, but we need to bite the bullet and use fission+reprocessing in a big way for the near future.

[–] BreadstickNinja@lemmy.world 3 points 13 minutes ago

Agreed. It's framed incorrectly, but the real problem is the "duck curve," the time disparity between peak generation and peak consumption. Pumped hydro, battery storage, electrolysis, and mechanical storage are all options, but each has its own constraints. Ultimately, though, it's an engineering problem with viable solutions. We just need the political will for the investment.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 16 minutes ago

Distributed rooftop solar is the worst way to use our grid. It's designed to pump a lot of power from a single place to a lot of little places. The opposite doesn't work very well.

The solution is to not focus on solar by itself. Solar/wind/water/storage/long distance transmission need to be balanced with each other. Each has strengths and weaknesses that cover for the strengths and weaknesses of the others.

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 7 points 6 hours ago

We have such a stupid fucking system for running society. We go out of our fucking way to block better options simply because they don't maximize profit. Not even "are actually unprofitable," just that they don't maximize profit.

[–] minorkeys@lemmy.world 10 points 11 hours ago

A system of disturbing goods and services that can't handle negative value is not a system that should be maintained. Our collect pursuit as a species should be the abundance of these things, not the artificially managed scarcity of them.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 24 points 15 hours ago

Problems for Capitalism are Solutions for Humanity

[–] MellowYellow13@lemmy.world 11 points 14 hours ago

Capitalism has always been the problem, nothing new here.

[–] drunkpostdisaster@lemmy.world 9 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I would post that passage from Grapes of Wrath about oranges. But copy-paste doesn't work on my phone

[–] Hobo@lemmy.world 27 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

I got you.

The works of the roots of the vines, of the trees, must be destroyed to keep up the price, and this is the saddest, bitterest thing of all. Carloads of oranges dumped on the ground. The people came for miles to take the fruit, but this could not be. How would they buy oranges at twenty cents a dozen if they could drive out and pick them up? And men with hoses squirt kerosene on the oranges, and they are angry at the crime, angry at the people who have come to take the fruit. A million people hungry, needing the fruit- and kerosene sprayed over the golden mountains. And the smell of rot fills the country. Burn coffee for fuel in the ships. Burn corn to keep warm, it makes a hot fire. Dump potatoes in the rivers and place guards along the banks to keep the hungry people from fishing them out. Slaughter the pigs and bury them, and let the putrescence drip down into the earth.

There is a crime here that goes beyond denunciation. There is a sorrow here that weeping cannot symbolize. There is a failure here that topples all our success. The fertile earth, the straight tree rows, the sturdy trunks, and the ripe fruit. And children dying of pellagra must die because a profit cannot be taken from an orange. And coroners must fill in the certificate- died of malnutrition- because the food must rot, must be forced to rot. The people come with nets to fish for potatoes in the river, and the guards hold them back; they come in rattling cars to get the dumped oranges, but the kerosene is sprayed. And they stand still and watch the potatoes float by, listen to the screaming pigs being killed in a ditch and covered with quick-lime, watch the mountains of oranges slop down to a putrefying ooze; and in the eyes of the people there is the failure; and in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.

[–] tfowinder@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Isn't capitalism the opposite ?

Competition and open market would promote sellers who quote lower because of abundance and consumers as well as sellers would benefit from the abundance.

Sellers who try to restrict the supply ultimately would loose in the long run because in a competitive market the seller would always choose cheap prices.

roots of the vines, of the trees, must be destroyed to keep up the price This would be valid if no one wan't to be sellers and a all the sellers in a market cooperate together to do this or are required by law to do this.

I know we like to blame capitalism for a lot of things but this here is a different situation i think.

[–] Phoonzang@lemmy.world 5 points 5 hours ago

It would in a properly free market. But late stage capitalism's goal is monopolization, because it maximises profit. Or to quote Marx: "Monopoly is the inevitable end of competition, which engenders it by a continual negation of itself."

And this is exactly what Steinbeck is describing here: "you buy food from us, at our prices, or nothing at all. We'd rather destroy our product than to sell lower." And they can do this because no one has access to the products, or the means of production (e. g. the land to grow produce).

And this is where we are today with Amazon, Nestle, Walmart and so on. They don't have any real competition anymore.

[–] drunkpostdisaster@lemmy.world 12 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Thanks. I love this quote. But it pisses me off so bad

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 3 points 6 hours ago

Slaughter the pigs and bury them, and let the putrescence drip down into the earth.

This reminds me of 2020 when they shut down slaughterhouses due to COVID. They killed hundreds of thousands (likely into the millions) of pigs using ventilation shutdown. These were not diseased pigs, it was simply to dispose of them while the slaughterhouses were shut down.

We live in a fundamentally sick society.

[–] HalfSalesman@lemm.ee 62 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Capitalism makes abundance problematic.

[–] Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 13 points 19 hours ago

Supply side Jesus says put your faith in the wisdom of the CEO.

[–] yagurlreese@lemmy.world 44 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

oh no the power is too cheap. God forbid our trillions of tax dollars go to something actually useful and good for the people oh well looks like we will get the F-47 instead and pay it to private military contracts 😂

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CalipherJones@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

The question comes down to this. How do you incentivize work other than with money?

[–] Chocobofangirl@lemmy.world 1 points 5 minutes ago

The same way arts and crafts were invented - humans want to do things whenever they aren't stressed out of their minds.

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 1 points 6 hours ago

Historically, people have worked due to real scarcity in order to meet their basic survival needs. We don't face such scarcity in the modern, developed world.

I've often conceptualized UBI or other such schemes (e.g. negative income tax) to provide a basic, spartan standard of living. If you want luxury, you need to work for it. Of course what constitutes "luxury" might fluctuate over time. And in times of greater abundance, UBI might be more generous while being scaled back in times of scarcity. If too many people opt out of working and only collect UBI, then real scarcity may indeed become and issue requiring such programs to be reduced.

But the point here is that we produce FAR more than what people actually need. This "must work and produce for the sake of it" leads to a lot of make-work in the form of things like artificial scarcity, planned obsolescence, or people producing and selling solutions in search of problems. The amount of actual fucking trash produced is mind-boggling. Something like fast fashion that produces low quality apparel only intended to be worn a few times has an enormous impact on our environment.

Imagine a world where we worked towards quality and making sure that actual needs were being met rather than being fixated on highest profitability at the exclusion of everything else. A more collaborative society instead of a hyper-competitive "winner take all" freak show.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 hours ago

Capitalism isn't "when people get paid for working." And people getting paid for doing a job isn't the problem highlighted in this post. In any case, there are any number of ways people might be motivated to do something useful.

[–] Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee 19 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (2 children)

Wasn't there a town in China that produced such a glut of surplus electricity that they didn't know what to do with it? And it was 100% solar?

[–] Nikelui@lemmy.world 16 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

I guess the biggest bottleneck for renewables is energy storage.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 7 hours ago

That's the common thought, but it rests on the assumption that demand cannot be manipulated.

Legacy generation incentivized overnight consumption, when the grid had excess production capacity it needed to unload. With solar, we need to reverse those incentives. If it is harder to produce power overnight, we can drive large industry (like steel mills and aluminum smelters) to switch from overnight operations to daytime consumption.

Overnight storage is something we do need, but it is not efficient, and the need for it should be avoided wherever possible.

Parking garages are usually full during the day, when solar is at its highest generation. In the near future, as EV adoption rises, parking garages need charging stations at every space, sucking up every "excess" watt on the grid.

[–] Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee 7 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Pretty much. Once we got that covered there is no excuse anymore.

[–] Robbity@lemm.ee 6 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

It's basically solved. Sodium batteries are cheaper and much more durable than lithium batteries, and are currently being commercialized. Their only downside is that they are heavier, but that does not matter for grid-scale storage.

[–] Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee 4 points 14 hours ago

I remember reading about those. Sodium batteries are revolutionary. They don't need a rare earth mineral... sodium is friggen everywhere.

[–] toastmeister@lemmy.ca 0 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (2 children)

Being cheaper than Lithium is great, but are they cheaper than nuclear?

The manpower of maintaining all these batteries seems like it would also be a lot, how would you do it for an entire grid, or would you need to have each individual placing a battery on their property to deal with brownouts?

[–] Robbity@lemm.ee 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

That's kind of irrelevant.

Nuclear handles the base power generation. Grid storage is meant to handle peaks. It needs to be cheaper than coal, which is also used for peaks.

Anyway, grid storage is already about 200$ per installed kw with lithium. If sodium gets us to 100$, a 1GW installation comparable to a nuclear plant would cost 100 million. That's like 150 to 300x cheaper than a nuclear plant. And a plant takes years to build, decades even. A storage facility takes days or weeks.

Of course that does not count energy generation, but grid scale storage basically stores free excess energy from nuclear and renewables. So they actually improve the cost efficiency of nuclear and renewables, they don't compete with them.

[–] MIXEDUNIVERS@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Problem with coal or nuklear is it isn't cheap. In Germany it survies only on subsidies. And Nuclear was abolished in Germany, a bit to early. I said we needed it 10 years longer and we could have shutdown our coal.

[–] toastmeister@lemmy.ca 1 points 18 minutes ago

The problem I see with wind and solar is you need backup power, to handle the sinusoidal nature of production. So you need to duplicate your power production, and that costs a lot.

[–] dubyakay@lemmy.ca 5 points 18 hours ago

Story of 2010s Germany as well.

[–] Atlas_@lemmy.world 58 points 1 day ago (9 children)

The answer is batteries. And dismantling capitalism, but batteries first

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] merdaverse@lemmy.world 48 points 1 day ago (12 children)

It's funny how capitalist apologists in this thread attack the format of a tweet and people not reading the actual article, when they clearly haven't read the original article.

Negative prices are only mentioned in passing, as a very rare phenomenon, while most of it is dedicated to value deflation of energy (mentioned 4 times), aka private sector investors not earning enough profits to justify expanding the grid. Basically a cautionary tale of leaving such a critical component of society up to a privatized market.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 7 hours ago

Negative prices are only mentioned in passing, as a very rare phenomenon

Negative prices are occurring more and more frequently. The cause is baseload generation: it can't be dialed back as quickly as solar increases during the day, and it can't be ramped up as fast as solar falls off in the evening. The baseload generators have to stay on line to meet overnight demand. Because they can't be adjusted fast enough to match the demand curve, they have to stay online during the day as well.

The immediate solution is to back down the baseload generators, and rely more on peaker plants, which can match the curve.

The longer term solution is to remove the incentives that drive overnight consumption. Stop incentivizing "off peak" consumption, and instead push large industrial consumers to daytime operation.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›