• EldritchFeminity
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    188
    ·
    8 months ago

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

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

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

    • Hugucinogens
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      73
      ·
      8 months ago

      Lol

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

      Too bad citizens pay the damages.

    • QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      8 months ago

      That’s not what I got from the article. (Link for anyone who wants to check it out.)

      My interpretation was that decreasing solar/wind electricity prices slows the adoption of renewables, as it becomes increasingly unlikely that you will fully recoup your initial investment over the lifetime of the panel/turbine.

      In my mind, this will likely lead to either (a) renewable energy being (nearly) free to use and exclusively state-funded, or (b) state-regulated price fixing of renewable energy.