this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2024
1622 points (95.9% liked)

Solarpunk

5393 readers
28 users here now

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

What is Solarpunk?

Join our chat: Movim or XMPP client.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 71 points 6 months ago (56 children)

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

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

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

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

[–] [email protected] 62 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (25 children)

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

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

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

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

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

[–] DogWater 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (5 children)

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 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (22 replies)
load more comments (52 replies)