• Rooskie91@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    240
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    6 days ago

    If you’re describing nearly free and unlimited electricity as a problem, you may want to reconsider some things.

    • MartianSands@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      158
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 days ago

      It’s a very capitalist way of thinking about the problem, but what “negative prices” actually means in this case is that the grid is over-energised. That’s a genuine engineering issue which would take considerable effort to deal with without exploding transformers or setting fire to power stations

        • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          73
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          6 days ago

          Home owned windmills are almost a total waste. Its surprising how little electricity they generate especially given how much the cost to buy and install. Some real numbers. A 400w can cost almost $18k to buy and install. A 410w solar solar panel is about $250 + $3k of supporting electronics and parts. And that same $3k can support 10+ more panels. I looked into it myself really wanted it to be worth it for home, but it just isn’t. Now utility grade wind? Absolutely worth it. You need absolutely giant windmills with massive towers, but once you have those, you can make a LOT of electricity very cost effectively.

          Solar panels worth it? Yes. Absolutely.

          Batteries, not quite there yet for most folks. Batteries are really expensive, and don’t hold very much electricity $10k-$15k can get you a few hours of light or moderate home use capacity. For folks with really expensive electricity rates or very unreliable power this can be worth it financially, but for most every else. Cheaper chemistry batteries are finally starting to be produced (Sodium Ion), but we’re right at the beginning of these and there not really any consumer products for home made from these yet.

          • DogWater@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            6 days ago

            Yeah, right now end of life EV batteries are great for making your own power storage but that’s a level of diy beyond what 95% of people are willing or able to do

            What’s infuriating is that we had electric cars before ICE powered cars. 1899. If we would’ve been investing money and effort into research for battery technology since then, we wouldn’t have this problem. Salt batteries, solid state batteries, and other promising tech is in it’s infancy because we just started to take this seriously as a society like 10 years ago.

            Better late than never but it grinds my gears that the best argument against solar and wind is power storage requirements due to unpredictable power generation. Like this is an extremely solvable problem.

            • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              5 days ago

              Yeah, right now end of life EV batteries are great for making your own power storage but that’s a level of diy beyond what 95% of people are willing or able to do

              End of life EV batteries are great for grid-scale operators doing power storage, but I highly recommend against homeowners use them this way. Not just because they are complex DIY projects as you point out, but because the EV batteries that are aging out of car use are NMC chemistry. These are great for high density power storage, which you want in a car, but they are susceptible to thermal runaway if they get too hot. The original Tesla Powerwall and Powerwall 2 also used these same chemistry batteries. I wouldn’t want these in my house. However, in a utility grid scale? Sure, they won’t be anywhere near people so in the unlikely event they do catch fire its a property problem, not a lost human life problem.

              • DogWater@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 days ago

                I understand your concern, I totally agree that the volatility isn’t ideal, but putting it in a steel box outside your house isn’t that beyond the scope for a diy-er. Envision it the same way a generac sits outside and ties in to your house but with a safe enough enclosure.

                As long as you check the cells you use when you deconstruct the car battery it should be fine. All the projects I watch online they don’t even need the liquid cooling system that it utilized when it was in the car because the discharge rate is so far below the C rating the battery that they don’t generate great like when they are in cars

                I understand that cell could go bad though at any time, so the box is necessary imo

          • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            Sodium ion batteries are going to be the solution. 18650 packs are already out and perform economically. Since the molecules are so much bigger, energy density is only like 60% of lithium based solutions, but they have a very wide temperature range and are incredibly more inert and safe and density isn’t a problem for bulk energy storage.

            The hurdle to overcome in inverters dealing with the very wide voltage span and bespoke charging ICs, but definitely possible and within 5 years will probably become a lithium iron phosphate competitor.

            • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              38
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 days ago

              Ahh I get it now. You have no idea what you’re talking about. You have the smallest understanding of something and assume that is everything. You’re so very far away from understanding the practical applications and limits. You’re also clearly not interested in learning, so I’ll leave you to your impractical delusions.

            • Shardikprime@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              6 days ago

              Wait so the same people that can’t drop 500 USD for an emergency are expected to drop 300 USD for a wind turbine and provide the installation of it to boot is that right

        • Kogasa@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          “put the excess energy into batteries” is an idea, and is already pretty much what is done, but the large scale implementation still requires a lot of time, effort, and expense.

        • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          6 days ago

          How, exactly, does that solve anything? It’s not like we can add some kind of magic automatic residential cutoff system (that would just make it worse) and residential distribution is already the problem! Residential solar is awesome (tho home batteries are largely elon propaganda…) but they only contribute to the above issue, not solve it. There are ways of addressing it, but they’re complicated and unglamorous.

          • Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            5 days ago

            It’s not like we can add some kind of magic automatic residential cutoff system

            Of course we can. They’re called Microgrid Interconnection Devices (MIDs).

            that would just make it worse

            Microgrids that can disconnect from the utility at appropriate times may in fact make it better. If homeowners responded to utility alerts of high demand and opted to disconnect from the grid during those times while still having power, that would just make grid operators and home owners happier.

            residential distribution is already the problem!

            Microgrids are the solution!

            tho home batteries are largely elon propaganda…

            While residential BESSs are largely Tesla based, they are absolutely key in the energy transition from fossil- to renewables-based power sources.

            they only contribute to the above issue, not solve it.

            How?

            There are ways of addressing it, but they’re complicated and unglamorous.

            Which ways?

            • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 days ago

              Which ways?

              MIDs are in fact one of the bigger ones! That said, all the ones I have worked with are promising but are as-yet still unreliable enough that municipal adoption has been mired in safety concerns and the usual nonsense. To be honest that’s been ever since they were first added to the NEC (admittedly most of this initially was based on speculative concerns), because of course. There are still warranted concerns with the implementation of microgrids, including things that are obviously bullshit like a lack of confidence in the reactivity of stations to the potential for the excessive peaking large residential adoption of home batteries might cause, but also much less bullshit things like the complicating risks of having very large lithium-based batteries present in a residential fire.

              They are not insurmountable concerns, but they are ones that need answering and are not a small part of why I say that currently, home battery storage solutions just aren’t there yet. Local-grid facilities (what one of your sources calls a Mini-grid) are currently the best solution, which is why so many utilities are installing them. I’ve no doubt that the issues will be worked out, and although it will be some time before the technology matures to where the economies of scale present at the municipal level are no longer a driving consideration, it’ll probably get there.

              very minor stuff

              While residential BESSs are largely Tesla based, they are absolutely key in the energy transition from fossil- to renewables-based power sources.

              Is this what you’d intended to link here, because while you’re factually accurate in their necessity and I’m not disputing your claims, as far as I can tell the source here is only discussing local-municipal (‘mini grid’) installs, not microgrid installs, nor does it touch on the value of home-scale BESS

              (edit: fixed some typos)

          • Wanderer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            6 days ago

            I don’t see why home batteries are propaganda. Those prices are plummeting and they have decent payback times in some markets.

            The reasons for getting solar is the same reasons for getting batteries.

            • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              6 days ago

              Because home batteries, while provisionally useful in the same way as a standby generator (though the generator is going to be far more eco friendly than the batteries over their respective lifetimes), is a vastly inferior solution to the implementation of even local grid scale solutions. Also because there is essentially 0 infrastructure designed to handle said batteries, they wear out quite quickly at home scales (unless you’re using uncommon chemistries, but if you’re using iron-nickle batteries you’re not the target audience here) and because Elon popularized them with his “powerwall” bullshit entirely to pump the stock value of Tesla’s battery plant (which is it’s own spectacular saga I encourage you to look up, it’s a real trip).

              Batteries in the walls are useful in niches, but the current technology which uses lipo/lion/lifepo4 chemistries is inherently flawed and a route to both dead linemen and massive amounts of E-waste. They could be useful potentially, but as it stands, it’s really bad right now.

              • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                5 days ago

                provisionally useful in the same way as a standby generator (though the generator is going to be far more eco friendly than the batteries over their respective lifetimes)

                A generator can provide backup power for unlimited time if fuel is available, but it is highest cost power in the world. Batteries can be charged/discharged every day, displacing dirty energy. A generator is either rarely used or eco destructive.

                • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 days ago

                  If you assume what’s being compared is the platonic ideal of both technologies then you’re largely correct, but removing them from the context of the real world (where: high density battery chemistries still wear out quickly, biodiesel is common, the supply chain is a major contributor of greenhouse emissions, the need for power backups is infrequent, and where grid power is still in large part supplied by fossil fuels) isn’t very useful. Local-grid scale battery storage is the best solution we have for direct energy storage, and it’s very much maturing rapidly, but home units are still restricted in the above and countless (because I am too lazy to count them) additional ways. Ignoring those issues doesn’t work; implementation doesn’t particularly care about theory.

              • Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                5 days ago

                is a vastly inferior solution

                How so?

                local grid scale solutions

                Which ones?

                there is essentially 0 infrastructure designed to handle said batteries

                If we’re talking residential scale, people already have the infrastructure: it’s the existing wiring inside their household. If we’re talking Commercial & Industrial (C&I) scale, it’s often the same answer. If we’re talking utility scale, oftentimes battery developers get quoted grid improvement costs from the utility and the developer has to pay those costs in order to connect to the grid. You act like the grid can’t change, and there isn’t any money lying around to make improvements, when in reality there are a lot of investors in BESS because of the high ROI.

                they wear out quite quickly at home scales

                This is true at any scale, resi, C&I, or utility, but batteries are modular and you can augment your capacity over time to make up for degradation.

                Elon popularized them with his “powerwall” bullshit entirely to pump the stock value of Tesla’s battery plant

                There are more manufacturers than just Tesla in the battery space, many of which who would benefit if the Powerwall failed or lost market share. Even if Tesla popularized them, their decline due to their idiotic, fascist CEO will mean that the existing demand will just look elsewhere for the same product, not exit the market entirely.

                Batteries in the walls are useful in niches

                In my opinion, every household could benefit from home battery storage just as much as people benefit from gas generators. They have widespread, not niche, appeal. The issue with low penetration in my opinion is lack of knowledge in both policymakers and customers.

                the current technology which uses lipo/lion/lifepo4 chemistries is inherently flawed

                While batteries do start to degrade the moment they leave the factory, the fact they have flaws doesn’t mean they aren’t still useful. You’re using the argument that the perfect is the only solution to the imperfect, when that shortsightedness gets in the way of progress.

                route to both dead linemen

                BESS failures have been falling and bottoming out over the last few years while deployment has skyrocketed. Seems like you’re telling a fiction.

                massive amounts of E-waste

                Recycling is projected to increase, especially as more and more battery installations reach End of Life (EOL), where as much as 60-80% of cobalt and lithium could be sourced from urban as opposed to virgin mines in the next 5-15 years. There is a sizable market opportunity for recycling to take off so long as good policy paves the way.

                as it stands, it’s really bad right now.

                Sure, let’s throw away one of humanity’s better solutions to the climate crisis since it’s bad now. It’s not like it could get better in the future. Again, such a show of shortsightedness.

                • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 days ago

                  How so?

                  That’s everything I’ve been talking about, you even go on to exhaustively quote what I’ve said that answers this question. Did you have a reason for saying this other than being combative? No, seriously, I really care about this subject and it’s clear you do too. And the most hardline thing I’ve said is that home battery walls and solar installs aren’t very good right now, and that local-grid installs are superior (I expand on that below). Surely there’s more constructive ways this could be approached.

                  Anyways, a couple points:

                  BESSFID (the common initialism? Not sure!) does not track interlock failures, which after them falling on you is the most directly dangerous aspect of both battery walls and standby generators. Unexpectedly energized lines are not something an average user understands, which is why it’s responsible for so many dead linemen. Generators (and now battery walls) feeding back into the grid during an outage are the #1 cause of unexpectedly energized lines, and this is very basic knowledge. It’s why every municipality requires a generator interlock be installed at the box for home-consumption power generation. No grid in the world is yet robust enough to prevent this danger.


                  [That batteries wear out] is true at any scale, resi, C&I, or utility

                  Yes and no! While yes batteries will always wear out, municipal facilities are not restricted by things like space constraints or residential safety concerns. This means they can implement battery degradation mitigation techniques that are impractical (or feasibly impossible) to be implemented on a residential scale, like distributed cell charge/discharge limits (which at their most effective handicap residential units by up to 20% of their rated capacity but greatly increase the lifetime) or direct cell cooling (which benefits spectacularly from economies of scale - active cooling on small packs is a huge drain for little return, but large scale battery installs can even use geothermal cooling to additionally increase their efficiency). Neither removes the fact that cells do wear out, but it greatly reduces the rate at which they do, and at a significant energy and space savings over alternative techniques. (You’ll note that these are many of the same reasons that municipal standby generators are more efficient than large numbers of residential standby generators!)


                  (this bit is mostly responding to your personal attacks, I will admit that:)

                  Recycling is projected to increase […]

                  Yes, but I am talking about current battery technology. You’re rebutting comments I made criticizing current technology with projections and speculation about future technology, which just isn’t fair. I could (hyperbolically, I admit) do the same thing by speculating that giant lithium eating termites will be developed by some rogue nation state in the near future, and that having a power wall risks them being attracted to your home and consuming your family in a gore splattered orgy of B-movie tropes.

                  Sure, let’s throw away one of humanity’s better solutions to the climate crisis since it’s bad now. It’s not like it could get better in the future. Again, such a show of shortsightedness.

                  A similar thing here. You’re also assuming that the future will improve things, which while it’s laudable you’re still able to be optimistic (no I mean that, I’m a depressed pos) it’s also very biased to assume that things will improve as time goes on.

                  You’re using the argument that the perfect is the only solution to the imperfect, when that shortsightedness gets in the way of progress.

                  And again, but with the additional add-in that I repeatedly say that municipal installs are better than home installs, not that batteries as power storage solutions are inherently bad. Just that the technology for home use, right now, is.


                  I could go on but I think I’ve addressed the major points of miscommunication, if you’re interested I would be genuinely happy to keep talking about this in a slightly less aggressive conversation.


                  (Edit: sorry, thought I should elaborate on this one tiny point:)

                  Batteries in the walls are useful in niches

                  (this is a very self indulgent pun)

              • Wanderer@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                6 days ago

                You need to look up how much grid storage lithium batteries are being built. It’s exponential growth. Faster than solar.

                The reason it’s worthwhile is because solar makes energy with 0 or near 0 price to the owner in certain places, if they store that and use it for later they save money. There are cost calculators out there and for certain markets they make sense.

                Of course Tesla pushes it they got a product people want and it makes the consumer and Tesla money. Win win. That’s business, nothing shady about that.

                Yes batteries are better on the grid but that’s for exactly the same reasons why solar is better on the grid.

          • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            6 days ago

            How, exactly, does that solve anything?

            After installation, a home owner has free electricity? I’m not trying to solve the issues for the power grid people, they have teams of people for that.

            Spain and Portugal had almost complete blackouts today. You know who wouldn’t have had blackouts? The people with their own solar panels and windmills.

            • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              6 days ago

              I acknowledge that there’s no real way to communicate sincerity online, but I’m gonna go ahead and promise I’m not trying to be a dick here when saying this:

              a home owner has free electricity

              I think you’re bonking up on the Dunning Kruger limit here, because that’s absolutely not how it works. Not only are the vast majority of homes not candidates for useful solar installs (you can pay someone to do it, but holy cow nearly every residential solar installer is a scam looking at you, Lumio International (how’s that RICO case going?)), but solar for home-use power generation is very much not the norm for a whole host of reasons (dead linemen one of the biggest ones) and the safety considerations for implementing it generally make it an onerous enough task to manage that it’s appeal is restricted largely to special interest users (homesteaders, preppers, S&R, power system enthusiasts, van life, etc ). There are ways this could be mitigated, but it would require a massive grid overhaul and additional constant upkeep beyond what any current grid already requires.

        • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          In no home outside of fringe uses are any lights 12vdc, with the exception of maybe led strip lights for undercabs. They’re all designed for 120vac. That lightbulb in the diagram is an e37/medium base for 120vac.

      • LostXOR@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        6 days ago

        Couldn’t solar farms just strategically disconnect some of their panels from the grid to avoid that? Solar panels are always collecting energy, but if you disconnect them that energy just goes into making them a bit warmer rather than overloading the grid.

      • dohpaz42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        6 days ago

        Nothing an open/close gate couldn’t fix. The real problem is how overly complicated we feel we need to make things.

      • wizzim@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        Sorry for the naive question, but is it not possible to send the excess electricity to the ground (in the electrical sense)?

        • Eheran@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          6 days ago

          To effectively waste electric power like that would take quite a bit of effort. It would be easier to make a giant heater that heats up air. But that would of course also be absurd. Just turn off the wind turbines etc. to reduce power generation.

      • unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        Oh, look! A challenge. And a business opportunity! Just get a mortgage, buy some land in the middle of nowhere and make a reverse hydro plant.

        Oh, I forgot. Banks don’t loan money for stuff not already existing or net-harmful hyped-up bullshit like AI and crypto.

      • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        Not an engineer but I sometimes watch them on YouTube.

        Could you not just set up a breakout point and have it arc to ground? If the power source is renewable then wasting a little when you have a full grid shouldn’t be a big issue. I’m thinking something along the lines of StyroPyro’s arcing plasma flamethrower should chew up plenty of excess power if you scale it up. As you ramp your total storage up toward 100% capacity I’d start shutting off inputs (disconnecting solars, etc) and then have what’s basically a big old Tesla coil to vent excess power over 95% capacity.

        • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          6 days ago

          There’s obviously a lot of issues with that idea, but I’d like to throw my wholehearted support behind it anyways, just to see the expressions my FCC/Radio buddies would make when they realize someone’s running a MW-scale tesla coil as some kind of electrical blowoff valve. I can’t easily tell you the exact size of the area you’d utterly obliterate all radio communications in, but it’d be hilariously large.

          • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            6 days ago

            Faraday cage should cover that no? Styro even mentions in the linked video that he needed to encapsulate his workshop in one in order to not get angry visits from the FCC. I’m sure for something scaled up like this you might want to nest a couple of them together.

            Again, not an engineer, I could be (and likely am) wildly off base here. Not sure what makes it such a terrible idea though. I am pretty certain that a MW-scale Tesla coil probably wouldn’t blow out a larger area of communications than, say, nuclear testing would, and we do that all the time in the Midwest.

      • blarth@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        The grid is always over energized. That’s not a problem. Large solar and wind farms connect to the grid with great specificity about the maximum amount of energy they will put on the lines. The problem would be not enough energy. Batteries are beginning to solve the dispatch energy issue with renewables. As long as republicans don’t get their way and ruin renewable energy with unfair fossil fuel mandates, the grid will continue to modernize in this way and we’ll be fairly independent of fossil fuels in the future for electricity.

        • someoneelse@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          6 days ago

          No it’s not, it’s energized just right. Otherwise you run into either over or under frequencies. Both pretty catastrophic.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      In fairness, capitalist expansion is predicated on generating and reinvesting profit. If you build an array of solar panels and generate a revenue less than the installation+maintenance cost of the panels, you don’t have any more money to buy new panels and expand the grid.

      That is, under a privatized system, anyway. If you’re a public utility and your goal is to meet a demand quota rather than raise revenue for the next round of expansion, profit isn’t your concern. You’re looking for the lowest possible installation/maintenance/replacement cost over the lifetime of the system, not the high margins per unit installed.

      Incidentally, this is why vertically integrated private firms that consider electricity an expense rather than a profit center have been aggressively rolling out their own privately managed solar/wind arrays. When the concern is minimizing cost rather than maximizing revenue, and you can adjust your rate of consumption to match the peak productive capacity of your grid, then solar/wind is incredibly efficient.

    • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      It’s how capitalists think about land, water, air, etc.

      … And violently attacking people by depriving them of these needs.

    • Num10ck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      thats why Westinghouse had to crush Nikolai Tesla. you can’t meter wireless power.

  • Atlas_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

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

    • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 days 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.

      • mholiv@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        5 days 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.

        • Count042@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 days ago

          Batteries for something like this would be something like a lake on top of, and at the bottom of, a mountain.

          Then you use excess power to move water up, and when you need power, the water comes down through a turbine.

      • WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        5 days 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
          7
          ·
          5 days 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…

  • okgurl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 days 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 😂

  • merdaverse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 days 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.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 days 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.

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      5 days 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.

  • JackbyDev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    84
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    6 days ago

    Ughh, no, negative prices aren’t some weird “capitalism” thing. When the grid gets over loaded with too much power it can hurt it. So negative prices means that there is too much power in the system that needs to go somewhere.

    There are things you can do like batteries and pump water up a hill then let it be hydroelectric power at night.

    • PumpkinSkink@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      73
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      6 days ago

      But it doesn’t say “it can generate too much energy and damage infrastructure”, they said “it can drive the price down”. The words they chose aren’t, like, an accident waiting for someone to explain post-hoc. Like, absolutely we need storage for exactly the reason you say, but they are directly saying the issue is driving the price down, which is only an issue if your not able to imagine a way to create this infrastructure without profit motive.

      • jsomae@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        Economists think in terms of supply and demand. Saying it drives prices down or negative is a perfectly good explanation of a flaw in the system, especially if you’re someone on the operating side.

        • Saleh@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          Why is it a flaw from an economic perspective?

          Both generation and consumption of electricity have a supply and demand. This is perfectly accepted in many other markets as well. We also had negative oil prices during the first Covid spike because the excavation cannot be stopped immediately. Certain industries like foundries also struggle with fully shutting down and restarting operations so sometimes they rather sell at a loss than stop operations. Farmers sell at a loss when the market is saturated just to sell somewhere and in other years they make a good profit on the same produce (assuming they actually have market power and aren’t wrung dry by intermediate traders).

          In terms of energy per capital investment and running costs solar power is among the cheapest energy sources, cheaper than fossils and much cheaper than nuclear power. So it is profitable overall to run solar power, even if sometimes the price is negative.

            • Saleh@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 days ago

              But the point is that it is not even a flaw from an economic perspective. There is demand both for short term flexible and long term stable energy production and energy consumption in the grid. If you assume prices to be a suitable instrument, which most economists do, then the negative price of the production is a positive price for the short term consumption.

      • lightsblinken@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 days ago

        this feels like someone just looking for an argument… having negative pricing is a problem, and yes there are solutions like hydro and battery… hopefully this encourages that infrastructure to be created!

    • Natanox@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      Except the grid overload thing isn’t even an issue with renewables, since wind can be shut down in a matter of 1-5 minutes (move them out of the wind) and solar literally just be disabled. Any overload they produce would be due to mechanical failure, where you can cut them off the grid since they’re in the process of destroying themselves anyway (like in those videos where wind turbines fail spectacularly). Otherwise renewables are perfect to regulate the grid if available.

      In a hypothetical grid with an absolute majority of many badly adjustable power sources (like nuclear) you’d have to work with negative prices to entice building large on-demand consumers or battery solutions. So far nobody was stupid enough to build a grid like this though.

      tl;dr, this whole problem indeed is about economics and therefore may very well be a “capitalism thing”. Renewables do not overload the grid.

      • racemaniac@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 days ago

        That’s also a pretty naive take on it.

        First of all, you can indeed shut of the renewables easily. But that means that adding renewables to the grid is even less profitable, making renewables less desired to be built.

        Hence in for example Germany a law was passed that prevented renewables being shut down in favor of worse energy sources, but that then leads to the issue we mention here.

        It’s a tricky situation with renewables. But on the other hand, society is slowly adapting to using them & improving the infrastructure to handle such issues, so we’ll get there eventually :).

          • racemaniac@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 days ago

            Because that’s what makes companies invest in renewables. If it’s not profitable, no new investments, and our world goes to shit (even more).

            • njm1314@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 days ago

              Caring only about profit is the exact reason why it’s going to shit. That is in no way the answer.

              • racemaniac@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 days ago

                It may not be the answer, but it is the current reality. If we want more renewable power right now, it needs to be profitable.

                You can wish it’s different, we all do. But reality is what it is, so that’s why you should care :).

                • njm1314@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 days ago

                  Except no, all we need to do is just not allow these companies to impose laws and regulations that stop us from innovating. That’s exactly what’s Happening Here. They’re not improving to be a better service, they’re not making cheaper better energy. They’re using coercive legal systems to stop cheaper better energy from being created. Your entire premise is utterly flawed.

      • JackbyDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 days ago

        🙄 It’s not like the need to get extra power out of the system magically goes away if money doesn’t exist.

  • EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days 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
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days 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.

  • Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days 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? And it was 100% solar?

        • Robbity@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 days 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.

          • Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 days 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 days ago

            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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              4 days 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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 days ago

              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
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 days 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.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 days 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.

  • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    You can read the Technology Review article here discussing why this is problematic beyond a JPEG-artifacted screenshot of a snappy quip from a furry porn Twitter account that may or may not have read the article beyond the caption. We need solar power plants to reach net zero emissions, but even despite their decreasing costs and subsidies offered for them, developers are increasingly declining to build them because solar is so oversaturated at peak hours that it becomes worthless or less than worthless. The amount of energy pumped into the grid and the amount being used need to match to keep the grid at a stable ~60 Hz (or equivalent where you live, e.g. 50 Hz for the PAL region), so at some point you need to literally pay people money to take the electricity you’re producing to keep the grid stable or to somehow dump the energy before it makes its way onto the grid.

    One of the major ways this problem is being offset is via storage so that the electricity can be distributed at a profit during off-peak production hours. Even if the government were to nationalize energy production and build their own solar farms (god, please), they would still run up against this same problem where it becomes unviable to keep building farms without the storage to accommodate them. At that point it becomes a problem not of profit but of “how much fossil fuel generation can we reduce per unit of currency spent?” and “are these farms redundant to each other?”.

    This is framed through a capitalist lens, but in reality, it’s a pressing issue for solar production even if capitalism is removed from the picture entirely. At some point, solar production has to be in large part decoupled from solar distribution, or solar distribution becomes far too saturated in the middle of the day making putting resources toward its production nearly unviable.

      • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        Nah, I see nothing wrong with an information diet composed of random people with no background sharing their pet conspiracy with 5 million people on TikTok that they learned from three minutes with ChatGPT, furry porn accounts clapping back on Twitter to an out-of-context 29-word quote from an MIT Technology Review article (reshared so many dozens of times that the quality has noticeably degraded), or a picture generated in a Russian disinformation farm showing a muscular Donald Trump rescuing crying orphans from drowning in Hurricane Helene while corrupt FEMA agents loot their houses.

        God fucking help us.

          • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            6 days ago

            On the plus side I guess: accessing good, robust information has literally never been easier as long as you’re media-literate enough not to fall into the landfill of trash information that you’re walking over.

            • During its start in the 2000s and early 2010s, Wikipedia was like a shadow of what it is today. As an example, take a look at the article for the element oxygen in 2006 (ignore the broken templates) and the article today. Its editors were just as smart, well-meaning, and hard-working, but guidelines and a deeply entrenched culture hadn’t emerged around making sure things are as verifiable, reliable, independent, unbiased, inclusive, and comprehensive and as possible. It’s kind of insane how much you can find there now as a starting point for further research. Wikipedia also forced the web-ification of Britannica, meaning even if you deeply distrust Wikipedia for some reason, you no longer need to pay hundreds to have an encyclopedia in your home.
            • Additionally, I imagine there are serious, experienced editors who are using LLMs to great effect as essentially a search engine on steroids to find obscure information, thereby speeding up their work (and they have the media literacy from years or decades of editing Wikipedia to wield this responsibly). Those who use it irresponsibly seem to be very quickly found out, although because I can’t prove a negative, I can’t say how much slop has slipped through the cracks.
            • Extremely niche hobbies and specialties have e.g. YouTube channels, subreddits/communities, etc. dedicated just to them providing a fantastic wealth of knowledge. Right now, I can go watch Gutsick Gibbon on YouTube to catch up on various findings in primatology from a PhD candidate on the verge of becoming a doctor. I can watch Gamers Nexus for highly comprehensive breakdowns of tech products. Realistically, I can self-teach in ways I never could have 20 years ago as long as I’m responsible.
            • Piracy has arguably never been easier to gain access to paywalled research papers, books, etc. There’s a movement in academia to make research open-access.
            • Software is moving more and more toward open-source. This gives entrenched, capitalist power structures increasingly limited control over people and opens up this knowledge to everybody.

            That all being said, things are really dire because so many people really lack the basic media literacy skills to utilize these tools and avoid the ocean of shit around them.

            • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 days ago

              It’s a bit scary because many of those things (Wikipedia, academic piracy) are being threatened and villainized, others (Reddit niches, maybe eventually YouTube) are hemorrhaging useful info, and utilitarian LLMs are simultaneously being vilified and enshittified by opposing political sides.

              Like, with the Qwen3 release, I just realized my internet barometer for “is it any good?” and technical info is totally gone… Reddit and other niches have withered away, Twitter/Linkdin are pure engagement farms, and I can’t hardly discuss it anywhere else populated without getting banned as an alleged AI Bro (whom, for the record, I hate with a burning passion). I seriously considered joining WeChat just to see some sane discussion.

              This is true for other fandoms and niches I’m in.

              I hate to sound apocalyptic, but it feels like my information sphere is imploding. The real marker will be when the US government starts taking action against Wikipedia.

        • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          6 days ago

          America: …Nah, this is fine. In fact, let’s elect the platforms’ owner-influencers. scrolls happily

        • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          I found the post to be succinct and coherent.

          Some problems need 2 or 3 paragraphs to even begin to convey them. They could’ve said “the problem isn’t just capitalism,” and that would have been met with vitriol, as it doesn’t convey that the actual article is more nuanced than “anti solar,”that meeting variable power demand with solar supply is a challenge, that at some point one does indeed saturate regional demand for solar to the point that building more plants isn’t productive (which frequent negative prices are an indication of), and so on.

          And if that’s too long and complex, well… I dunno what to tell you.

    • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      I do like how this Twitter account, in the rush to blame capitalism, overlooked the fact that the sun rises and sets every day.

    • deeferg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      I’ve known about the issue with a lack of ways to store the energy produced for about 5 years now, does it seem like we’re making any steps in it recently? Also how does it work in a “green” fashion to produce all of the batteries necessary for that sorts of energy storage, I feel like that’s going to be one of the next discussions about how “pure” this method is.

      • iii@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        The size of the storage problem is not well understood by most. The world production of batteries is insufficient to power germany with 100% renewables.

        A possible solution is changing consumption patterns (in jargon known as demand-response). This runs into 2 issues: (1) people need to change their behaviour, with they wont. (2) You handicap your economy, to the benefits of countries that do not care about emissions. With a good chance that the net result is more emissions.

  • Formfiller@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    4 days ago

    But we can start rejecting late stage capitalism. Unfortunately, that’s not what is happening people are voting for right wing nut jobs who will enforce capitalism through oppression, poverty, mass surveillance and militarized police.

  • peereboominc@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    6 days ago

    Why not do something with all that power? In the past there were some projects where they pumped water upstream when there was too much power on the grid. Then on low energy times, the water was released making energy again. Or make hydrogen (I think it was hydrogen). Or do AI stuff

    I also seen energie waste machines that basically use a lot of power to do nothing. Only the get rid of all that extra energy so the power grid won’t go down/burn.

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      6 days ago

      Why not do something with all that power?

      This is a relatively new problem, so it will take awhile for the market to respond to make industries optimized to take advantage of this.

      I saw an article a few months ago (couldn’t find it quickly just now) about a small manufacturing company (metals maybe?) that set up shop specifically to run during the excess power events. So its starting to happen, but its not going to be a perfect fit. It means spending lots up front for infra, but only being able to use it a few hours a day cost effectively.

      In the past there were some projects where they pumped water upstream when there was too much power on the grid. Then on low energy times, the water was released making energy again.

      This is already done with pump hydro. But this needs existing hydroelectric infrastructure to take advantage of. Even then there are usually holding ponds upstream and they themselves have limited capacity.

      Or make hydrogen (I think it was hydrogen).

      This is being done too at small scales right now. There’s difficulties with it. Hydrogen really sucks to try store and transport. The H2 molecule is so small it leaks out through valves and gaskets that are fine for containing nearly all other gases and liquids. So this means the gear needed is hugely more expensive up front. What a few are doing is using the hydrogen to quickly make Ammonia (NH3), which is much easier to store and contain. However, the efforts doing this are still fairly small.

      Or do AI stuff

      AI aside, this is one place I haven’t seen develop yet. That being: cheaper compute costs during excess power events.

      I suspect its the same problem for the manufacturing. It means spending money on expensive compute infrastructure but only able to use it during the excess power events. As in, the compute in place is already running flat out at full capacity all the time. There’s no spare hardware to use the excess power. If you had spare hardware, you’d add it to your fleet and run it 24/7 making more money.

    • ceenote@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 days ago

      We still have hydroelectric turbines that can reverse themselves to pump water to a higher elevation reservoir to store surplus energy. We call them pump-gens at my job. The problem is that, as nearby areas develop, that water gets reserved for other things, so they can’t pump it back up because it’s needed further downstream for irrigation or communities or whatever.

    • Hobo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      5 days 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.

        • EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 days 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.

      • TFO Winder@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          5 days 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.