this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2024
875 points (100.0% liked)

Solarpunk

222 readers
3 users here now

The space to discuss Solarpunk itself and Solarpunk related stuff that doesn't fit elsewhere.

What is Solarpunk?

Join our chat: Movim or XMPP client.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone 112 points 5 months ago (4 children)

I saw some context for this, and the short of it is that headline writers want you to hate click on articles.

What the article is actually about is that there's tons of solar panels now but not enough infrastructure to effectively limit/store/use the power at peak production, and the extra energy in the grid can cause damage. Damage to the extent of people being without power for months.

California had a tax incentive program for solar panels, but not batteries, and because batteries are expensive, they're in a situation now where so many people put panels on their houses but no batteries to store excess power that they can't store the power when it surpasses demand, so the state is literally paying companies to run their industrial stoves and stuff just to burn off the excess power to keep the grid from being destroyed.

[–] Daxter101@lemmy.blahaj.zone 51 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Lol

I just love when large organizations (governments included) skimp on something for monetary reasons, and get fucked down the line.

Too bad citizens pay the damages.

[–] Glass0448@lemmy.today 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Wish there was just a faster way to get citizen input.

"Hey folks, this is going to be a cost overrun for this very very good reason, please vote yay or nay in the weekly election".

Don't see how it could work now though, given that half the citizens are deeply committed to destroying everything to prove gov doesn't work.

[–] ddkman@lemm.ee 17 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Also, let's be real here. The Lion battery farms, defeat any sort of environmental benefit. It is a total shot in the foot, which is why governments, and solar companies don't advertise the concept.

[–] SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net 20 points 5 months ago (2 children)

For a moment I was thinking that lion battery is some brand, until it clicked in that you are talking about lithium ion batteries

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] scroll_responsibly@lemmy.sdf.org 80 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] BastingChemina@slrpnk.net 41 points 5 months ago (3 children)

We own the factories building the panels.

Solar cells don't really grow on trees.

[–] Hupf@feddit.de 47 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Solar cells don't really grow on trees.

[–] BastingChemina@slrpnk.net 24 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Are you talking about

A scalable self replicating and self sustaining carbon capture technology that uses a mix of highly specialized biological processes to turn CO2 into engineering grade composite construction material, fuel and fertilizer.

?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jaschen@lemm.ee 6 points 5 months ago

The majority of panels produced in the world right now is China. Like dwarfs the other countries.

Big oil currently does not own the factories.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 53 points 5 months ago (7 children)

To be fair, having a mismatch between when energy is available and when it is needed is going to be a problem under any economic system, since it's a fundamental inefficiency that must be worked around with additional effort and resources

[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 11 points 5 months ago (5 children)

You gotta recharge your phone battery sometime though - and if electricity had a different cost for nighttime vs. daytime, you can bet that people would choose the day option whenever possible.

(I chose a mobile device here bc it doesn't need any "extra" battery or technology beyond what would already normally be at hand.)

[–] GenEcon@lemm.ee 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Thats basically how its done in most of Europe. Price changes every 15 minutes and some smart system starting washing machines etc if a certain threshhold is reached.

Of course you can also get a hedged contract where you pay a fixed price and don't need to care about it, but you have the choice.

[–] Damage@feddit.it 8 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Uh, in my part of Europe we don't have 15-minute changes, that would be a nightmare.

You can have a contract where the day is split in 3 or 4 different rates, so that it's cheaper to run your washing machine at night for instance.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] lefaucet@slrpnk.net 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Like turning them off... Which is fine. Turning off solar panels is literally built into the systems and can be automated

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 47 points 5 months ago (21 children)

Both of the statements in that screenshot are just so inane.

Frequency has to be maintained on the grid. It’s the sole place where we have to match production and consumption EXACTLY. If there’s no battery or pumped storage storage available to store excess energy, the grid operators have to issue charges to the producers, in line with their contracts, to stop them dumping more onto the grid (increasing the frequency). The producers then start paying others to absorb this energy, often on the interconnectors.

It’s a marketplace that works (but is under HEAVY strain because there’s so much intermittent production coming online). When was the last time you had a device burning out because the frequency was too high?

Turning the electricity grid into some kind of allegory about post-scarcity and the ills of capitalism (when in fact it’s a free market that keeps the grid operating well) is just “I is very smart” from some kid sitting in mom and dads basement.

[–] tanja@lemmy.blahaj.zone 42 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Your explanation works very well, but completely falls apart in the last paragraph.

Solar power production clearly is (at least in part) a post-scarsity scenario, given we literally have too much power on the grid.

Furthermore, calling the power market anything like "free" is just plain wrong. A liberal approach to market regulation here would have led to disaster a long time ago, for the reasons you described at the beginning of your comment.

The market "works" because of, not inspite of regulation.

And negative prices are a good thing for consumers, not market failure.

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 18 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)

But too much power on the grid isn’t “here, have at it”. It’s fried devices and spontaneous fires breaking out. The grid can’t “hold the power”, only pumped and battery storage can, of which we have nowhere near enough. The grid literally cannot work if other producers put more electricity on to it.

If you have smart meter, you can literally be paid to use power at that point.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] MNByChoice@midwest.social 13 points 5 months ago

Additionally, this has been a known issue for decades. If only there had been investment in handling it...

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip 42 points 5 months ago (3 children)

If the excess energy cannot be stored, it should be used for something energy intensive like desalination or carbon capture.

[–] melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee 23 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Or just fill debts. Overclock every air conditioner freezer and industrial coolant system for those hours, store that not-heat. Do cpu intensive processes, time industrial machinery to be active during those hours, Sure, desalination, but pumped hydro(even just on a residential scale, more water towers, dammit!) or... Anything.

OR we could just decline to build them because they're... Sometimes too good to make a profit off of?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 16 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Or heck, have fun with it. It's leftover

[–] MadBob@feddit.nl 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You mean just juice your veins?

[–] x_cell@slrpnk.net 6 points 5 months ago
[–] Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz 9 points 5 months ago

Like a Phase Plasma Rifle with a 40-Watt range.

[–] UnfortunateDoorHinge@aussie.zone 6 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Heck pumping water uphill for all I care. The more potential energy the better.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] IvanOverdrive@lemm.ee 41 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (9 children)

My favorite solution for storage of excess power is closed loop pumped hydro. Two bodies of water of different elevations are connected by a generator/pump. When there is too much power, the pump moves the water to the higher lake. When the power is needed, the water flows through the generator to the lower lake.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] wizzor@sopuli.xyz 33 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (14 children)

I get the sentiment in here, but the poster is missing an important point: there is a reason some group of lunatics (called the TSO or Transport System Operator or in some cases other power producers) are willing to pay for people to consume electricity when there is too much of it; They are not doing it for the sake of being lunatics, the electrical system cannot handle over or underproduction. Perfectly balanced (as all things should be) is the only way the grid can exist.

The production capacity in the grid needs to be as big as peak demand. The challenge we face with most renewables is that their production is fickly. For a true solarpunk future, the demand side needs to be flexible and there need to be energy storages to balance the production (and still, in cold and dark environments other solutions are needed).

In off-grid, local usages we usually see this happen naturally. We conserve power on cloudy low-wind days to make sure we have enough to run during the night (demand side flexibility) and almost everyone has a suitably sized battery to last the night. The price variability is one (flawed) mechanism to make this happen on a grid or bidding zone level.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 27 points 5 months ago (3 children)

This is a real problem but you can only have so many words in a tweet. Note that the price isn't zero but instead negative. It means there is literally too much power in the grid and it would need to be used. If a grid has too much power then it is bad. It can damage it. There are things we can build that essentially amount to batteries (or natural variants like a dam) that get charged during times of higher supply than demand and discharged during times of higher demand than supply.

[–] melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee 11 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

No but see you can't build infrastructure to solve problems. What is this the 1700s? Go ride a train, commie!

Problems are only solved by grinding humans into a fine paste/powder, or destroying things for quarterly profits. Or doing a giant mountain of cocaine.

[–] NostraDavid@programming.dev 7 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Yes, infra can be built, but not fast enough to keep up with all the solar panels being installed. For example: In the Netherlands our network can't keep up with the requests being put out by companies, and we've already been busy for the last 5-ish years to install new infra, but that shit can take over 10 (!!!) years before a large line has been added. Land needs to be bought, people need to be informed, plans need to be made or adjusted, local companies need to be hired, the materials bought in and build into new pylons, etc.

It's a MASSIVE undertaking. Even if you talk on a local level, where "The Last Mile" is the time-consuming problem there.

Shit takes time.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 27 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Scarcity is artifically created in the modern age

[–] Droechai@lemm.ee 11 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

My local library can only lend out x copies of each ebook at a time, so sometimes I'm in a queue for the last lenders loan time to run out

[–] qdJzXuisAndVQb2@lemm.ee 7 points 5 months ago

Surely just pirate it so you can read it on your timetable, and take the book from the library when it's your turn to give that author the lending stats?

[–] CaptObvious@literature.cafe 26 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Unfettered capitalism will be the end of us.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 14 points 5 months ago (5 children)

Capitalism can work to our benefit. It's main benefit is incentivising people to get more, which seems to work well at encouraging people to be productive. The main idea is supposed to be efficient resource allocation, but that plainly does not work as it leads to wealth accumulation at the top.

Our problem is twofold. The first problem is we externalize negative costs onto society. So environmental damage, health costs, workers pensions, roads, bridges etc.

The second problem is efficient wealth distribution. Currently we focus on income rather than wealth. We should tax wealth just as much as income. We certainly should make any use of an asset as collateral a taxable event.

Some things that might help. We should look at changing taxation systems to be a formula rather than bands. The more income you get, the higher it goes. The lower your income, the lower you're taxed. Same as now but rather than having to meet a threshold to move bands, every dollar is taxed based on where it falls in the distribution curve. It would be more complex for people to get their heads around at first, but actually simpler for all calculations going forwards.

UBI would also help with redistribution and make society more efficient overall.

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 27 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I get what you are trying to say, but you sound like someone in an abusive relationship that still believes they can fix the abuser somehow.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Zorque@kbin.social 9 points 5 months ago (11 children)

UBI would also help with redistribution and make society more efficient overall.

UBI is a band-aid, not a solution. It's a way to keep a broken system working for a little bit longer until it's no longer politically expedient to help those in need. It props up capitalism in the guise of giving people a leg up.

It's selling people bootstraps so they can lift themselves up by them.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 8 points 5 months ago (6 children)

You just mentioned a number of ways that capitalism could be "fettered" to work more for the benefit of all. But the person you responded to said "unfettered capitalism" (unless they changed it later). :-)

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org 17 points 5 months ago (1 children)

We need natural batteries like solar power lifting water from a lake into a reservoir so that when we need that energy and the sun isn't making it, released water does

[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 5 months ago (4 children)

A cubic meter of water above your roof has the storing capacity of a AAA cell. That's why you need huge, massive damms to store any significant amount of power. But unfortunately it's not flexible enough (you need mountains nearby) or dense enough.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee 14 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Am I the only one noticing a lot of conservative economic priests in here? Is this normal?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 10 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (11 children)

Reactionaries grow louder as the system becomes more strained and workers more class aware.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 12 points 5 months ago (3 children)

No, it's not. It's a practical problem, not an economic one, but leave it to the tankies here to take it as an opportunity to show how many slogans they have learned.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] OpenStars@startrek.website 11 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Nikola Tesla was a radical anarchist then, I guess? :-P

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 13 points 5 months ago (6 children)

I mean, in a lot of ways he didn't care about the economics of his inventions. He wanted to transfer electricity wirelessly across huge areas and there really wasn't a way to monetise that if everyone could just tap into that.

In a communist society you could build something like that, in capitalism you're not going to find an investor to do this.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Prices going negative is Capitalism's solution actually. Gives the price incentive for folks to charge their cars when prices go negative, or whatever.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›