• tanja@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    81
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      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.

      • _tezz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        I think we’re quite a long way off from “too much power on the grid”, no? Even in America we regularly over-strain our grids. My power provider has even started discouraging folks from using their power as much, and charging more, because they simply decided not to do this work of increasing the amount generated. Like my bill has never once gone down, this paying people to use power concept is completely unheard of in practice.

        That said I’m willing to be wrong. If you can show me evidence we have “too much power” I’d be happy to take that to my elected officials, insist I should get paid to heat up my noodles or whatever.

        • brianorca@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          7 months ago

          We don’t have too much power overall, but there are moments where solar and renewable production in a region exceeds usage in that region.

        • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Where I live at the moment (UK), people with home batteries are regularly paid for storing excess energy from the grid. I haven’t got a clue about the American energy market, but intermittent energy production is causing huge strain on European grids.

          • _tezz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Interesting… Can y’all make room for one more over there? The bill for my 3-bedroom home is around $150 per month T_T

    • DogWater@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      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.

      Regulation of a market by the government is liberal politics. A laize faire approach is conservative lol.

      • Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Somehow internet populists have become convinced that liberalism = the government never does anything. Ask literally any economist and they will tell you government intervention and regulation are needed in many things.

        For example, read this study on the policy views of practicing economists: https://econfaculty.gmu.edu/klein/PdfPapers/KS_PublCh06.pdf

        You will find that most economists strongly support things like environmental, food and drug safety, and occupational safety regulations.

        Convincing people liberalism is an evil capitalist ploy to deregulate at all costs is a conservative psyop, and judging from comments like the one to which you’re responding, it’s working.

        • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Somehow internet populists have become convinced that liberalism = the government never does anything. Ask literally any economist and they will tell you government intervention and regulation are needed in many things.

          ah yes, the classic laissez faire interpretation of libertarian.

      • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        Neo liberalism is the core ideology of modern conservatism. For example, both the republican and democrat parties in the United States adhere to Neo Liberal ideology. They are both conservative.

        Neo liberalism is the ideology of deregulated capitalism. Neo liberalism holds that everything should be marketable without government interference, including healthcare, real estate, power generation, water, etc. Pioneered by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, it is the dominant political ideology across Western democracies. Liberals and Conservatives are both adherents of Neo Liberal capitalist ideology. Leftists are those who support regulation, they are definitionally anti-capitalist. When people refer to the democrat party as socialist or democrats as Leftists, they’re just misusing those terms. Democrats are Neo liberal conservatives who, by and large, support deregulated capitalism.

        • DogWater@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Okay, and?? None of that goes against what I said. In the scope of us politics, Deregulation of markets in the US is Republican platform. Regulation of markets is Democrat platform. Democrats in the US are more liberal than Republicans even though, as you said, they are far from real leftists.

          • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            Their platform at times advocates regulation, but they don’t do much in the way of it. They are largely still in favor less regulation. We have had Democrat presidents since Reagan, quite a few actually and despite that unilaterally regulation had decreased pretty constantly over that time period.

    • Aux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      There’s no post scarcity. The power available on the grid must always equal the power consumed. Or all the hell will break loose.

      • Ross_audio@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        That’s wrong and it’s simple to explain why.

        If the grid allows negative prices, grid storage becomes a profitable business opportunity.

        The power consumption will always go up or production will go down if prices go negative.

        We are missing a key piece of the puzzle to decarbonise the grid and that’s storage of the abundant renewable power we could easily create.

        This is a sign the market is ready for investment in storage.

          • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            They’re mixing the two to attempt to make a point. “Post-scarcity” is an economic concept, and I’ve never heard that term used in physics.

            • nxdefiant@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              It’s two separate statements. We don’t live in a post scarcity world. Power grids have physical limitations regarding power in and power out.

            • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              ah yes the physics concept of “post scarcity”

              Power plant operators are known to have dreaded this inevitability. There will be no more electrons.

          • Ross_audio@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            There’s no point about talking about the physics of the grid without the economics.

            The story of the New York blackouts is not one of groundbreaking physics.

            It’s the story of two lightning strikes, some very basic physics, and a systemic failure.

            Understanding the systemic failure is not a physics question. Electricity is already well understood and that physics isn’t changing.

            A renewable grid is not a physics question either. It’s one of regulation, redundancies and the end goal hasn’t changed.

            Saying “production and consumption on the grid must match” might as well be put in the pile with statements like “wires must be made of conductive material”. They’re just 2 things that haven’t changed.

        • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          If the grid allows negative prices, grid storage becomes a profitable business opportunity.

          in fact, if the price of electricity on the grid changes at all. Storage becomes a point where money can be made.

        • NostraDavid@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Question: Who do you think is paying these “negative prices”. Spoiler: It’s the TSOs. They can’t do that for long, or simply go bankrupt.

          Yes, “storage of the abundant renewable power” is a key piece of the puzzle, but “The power available on the grid must always equal the power consumed” is something that can not be broken. If it does, equipment will break, people will be without power, and it’ll cost the TSO tons of money to repair.

          There’s post scarcity, but only during a short time of the day, when power consumption is relatively lower (it spikes when people come home, because everyone turns their lights and machines on around the same time).

          Oh, and I don’t know about the USA, but the Dutch grid is pretty much overloaded, so there is no space to move the power to the storage units (whether the storage exists or not doesn’t matter ATM). We’re working on it, but here’s we’re kinda fucked ATM.

          • Ross_audio@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Bankruptcy is seen as a bad thing. In reality it’s the part of market forces everyone has forgotten is important.

            If something we need becomes unstable in the market, the government has to provide it and usually does on a break even basis.

            Base load electricity will likely have this future.