• minorkeys@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 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.

    • Hobo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 hours ago

      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.

  • Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 hours ago

    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 all? And it was 100% solar?

        • Robbity@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 hours ago

          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.

  • okgurl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 hours ago

    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 😂

    • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 hours ago

      A big flaw in German energy policy that has done a great job in expanding renewables, includes not giving its industry variable rates, that lets them invest in batteries, and schedule production more seasonally, or if they have reduced demand due to high product prices from high energy costs, just have work on the good days.

      Using EVs as grid balancers can be an extra profit center for EV owners with or without home solar. Ultra cheap retail daytime rates is the best path to demand shifting. Home solar best path to removing transmission bottlenecks for other customers. Containerized batteries and hydrogen electrolysis as a service is a tariff exempt path at moving storage/surplus management throughout the world for seasonal variations, but significantly expanding renewables capacity without risking negative pricing, and making evening/night energy cheaper to boot.

      • WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Honestly, this attitude is downright suicidal for our species right now. Capitalism took centuries to develop. Anything that replaces it will form over a similar time scale. And with climate change, that is time we do not have.

        • Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          13 hours ago

          I’ve got some bad news though. If our markets keep ignoring the environmental cost of… well, pretty much anything, as they always have, capitalism will also fuck us over in the long run. I’ve even heard it’s already happening…

          • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            12 hours ago

            Capitalists People in just about every system ignore negative externalities, which are defined as costs borne by other people for the benefits that they receive themselves. Ironically, capitalism might be the best short-term solution, if only we had the political will. One of the major functions of government is to internalize negative externalities, via taxes and regulations. It’s easy for a factory owner to let toxic effluent flow into the nearby river, but if it costs enough in taxes and fines, it’s cheaper to contain it. We just need to use government regulations to make environmental damage cost too much money, and the market would take care of re-balancing economic activity to sustainable alternatives. The carbon tax is a well-known example of this technique, but we’ve seen how well that has gone over politically. Still, it’s probably easier to push those kinds of regulations in a short time frame than to fundamentally revamp the entire system.

      • mholiv@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Not saying we shouldn’t do both, but in reality waiting to destroy capitalism before fixing the grid just means you have too much theory and not enough praxis.

  • merdaverse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    19 hours ago

    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.

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Without reading the article, I could already see what the problem was.

      Unless you have capital to invest, you can’t expand or improve the power grid. That capital can either come from the gov’t–through taxation–or from private industry. If you, personally, have enough capital to do so, you can build a fully off-grid system, so that you aren’t dependent on anyone else. But then if shit happens, you also can’t get help from anyone else. (Also, most houses in urban areas do not have enough square feet of exposure to the sun to generate all of their own power.)

      Fundamentally, this is a problem that can only be solved by regulation, and regulation is being gutted across the board in the US.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 hours ago

        That’s not the problem the article gets to. The capital is there. Capital is being dumped into solar at breakneck speed. That’s the problem.

        As more solar gets built, you get more days when there’s so much excess solar capacity that prices go near zero, or occasionally even negative. With more and more capacity around solar, there is less incentive to build more because you’re increasing the cases of near-zero days.

        Basically, the problem is that capitalism has focused on a singular solution–the one that’s cheapest to deploy with the best returns–without considering how things work together in a larger system.

        There are solutions to this. Long distance transmission helps areas where it isn’t sunny take advantage of places where it is. Wind sometimes blows when the sun isn’t shining, and the two technologies should be used in tandem more than they are. Storing it somewhere also helps; in fact, when you do wind and solar together, they cover each other enough that you don’t have to have as much storage as you’d think. All this needs smarter government subsidies to make it happen.

        As a side note, you seem to be focused on solar that goes on residential roofs. That’s the worst and most expensive way to do solar. The space available for each project is small, and it’s highly customized to the home’s individual roof situation. It doesn’t take advantage of economies of scale very well. Using the big flat roofs of industrial buildings is better, but the real economies of scale come when you have a large open field. Slap down racks and slap the solar panels on top.

        If what you want is energy independence from your local power utility, then I suggest looking into co-op solar/wind farms. If your state bans them–mine does–then that’s something to talk to your state representatives about.

        • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          13 hours ago

          It doesn’t take advantage of economies of scale very well.

          You missed my point; I was talking about being entirely off-grid there. So unless the homeowner in question also has a large industrial building with a flat roof, we’re back to where I said that they didn’t have enough generative capacity to not be reliant on a power grid, at least in part.

          If what you want is energy independence from your local power utility,

          No, I want energy independence period. Not just from the local utility, I want independence from a co-op as well. I want to have my own well so I’m not relying on someone else to deliver water. I want enough arable land to grow most, or all, of my own food. This isn’t compatible with living in a city. (And part of the reason I want to generate my own power is so that I can use all electric vehicles.)

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            12 hours ago

            You missed my point. What you assumed the article said was completely off base.

            No, I want energy independence period. Not just from the local utility, I want independence from a co-op as well.

            Then what you’re asking for is a more fractured human society. This kind of independence from others is an illusion and is not compatible with how humans have evolved.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          14 hours ago

          Transmission is tough. But the solution from too much solar investment driving down profits would be to invest that same money into storage. That seems like a natural follow up.

          Imagine your profit if you can charge your storage with negative cost power!

        • evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 hours ago

          Wow, someone actually explaining the problem correctly. I’ll also mention that part of the fix should be on the demand side. Using your home as a thermal battery can load shift HVAC needs by hours, and with a water heater, it works even better. That’s not even talking about all the other things that could be scheduled like washer/dryers, dish washers, EV charging, etc.-

          the real economies of scale come when you have a large open field.

          And before anyone bothers you about the impact of turning fields into solar farms, I’ll add that we (the US) already have more farmland dedicated to energy production (ethanol corn) than would be necessary to provide our whole electricity demand.

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            14 hours ago

            And before anyone bothers you about the impact of turning fields into solar farms, I’ll add that we (the US) already have more farmland dedicated to energy production (ethanol corn) than would be necessary to provide our whole electricity demand.

            Oh hell yes. 40% of the corn is grown in the US for ethanol, and it’s a complete and utter waste. Even with extremely optimistic numbers the amount of improvement is close to zero. It might be the worst greenwashing out there; sounds like you’re doing something, but its benefit is likely negative.

            We have the land. That’s so not a problem.

  • easily3667@lemmus.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    People keep reposting this like it’s a gotcha.

    It’s not

    If prices are negative most of the day there is less incentive to provide the capacity that’s needed during the night. The money for capex has to come from somewhere so it goes up significantly at night. And of course the negative price isn’t “real”, it just means power plants will shut down for swaths of the year until it’s affordable to keep the remainder running. Which then means lower average capacity on days that are cloudy, or additional maintenance on systems that only run in the winter. So then people throw battery stuff around… batteries are expensive. Really, really, really, really expensive. So you have to find a way to keep capacity up that’s not absurdly expensive or hard to maintain, or you have to keep all your fossil fuel plants at the ready while producing $0 in income to offset the upkeep, which…yes, gets passed to the consumer.

    I know people want to simplify the national grid which spans across all continental states and connects to literal billions of devices producing and consuming power…but it’s actually kinda complicated.

    • merdaverse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      20 hours ago

      The original article literally frames it as an economic problem under capitalism. Most of the article is about value deflation, not about the niche case of storing excess energy.

      Lower prices may sound great for consumers. But it presents troubling implications for the world’s hopes of rapidly expanding solar capacity and meeting climate goals. It could become difficult to convince developers and investors to continue building ever more solar plants if they stand to make less money or even lose it https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/07/14/1028461/solar-value-deflation-california-climate-change/

      Maybe take a break from the capitalist apologia to understand that this shouldn’t be a problem for a society that is trying to move away from cooking the planet.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        19 hours ago

        “Instead of trying to solve the problem we currently have, with the systems and tools that are there, how about we forget about the problem and work on something much much harder instead”.

        Don’t get me wrong you’re absolutely free and welcome to advocate for systemic solutions. But don’t attack people working on alleviating symptoms in a practical way or I’ll call you an accelerationist. “Here’s how we implement socialism! Step one: Burn the planet”.

        • merdaverse@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          15 hours ago

          If you think the problem is being solved in the current system I will leave you to your delusions.

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            14 hours ago

            Go ahead, enlighten us. What is that magical praxis that will turn the world socialist before the Netherlands sink into the ocean?

            Capitalism sucks, yes, but you can count on the self-interest of capital. Furnish regulation such that the thing we want them to do has the best ROI, they’re going to do it. Hard to implement? Well then guess what’s even harder to implement.

    • Turret3857@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      wow, its almost like the government that we pay taxes to should be what’s powering the country and not private corporations that are only concerned about profits 😋

  • WhatSay@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    As a solar punk, I have solar panels, some batteries, and all my stuff runs off USB or 12v. I don’t pay utilities