• marcos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    2 months ago

    If “our” means on the US, you may have to take a look at your electricity monopolies for it to make any difference.

    • RamRabbit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      The US has some of the cheapest energy in the civilized world. I’m not sure what to draw from that fact, but it is clear our energy system works pretty well for the end-user.

      For a counterpoint, check out Germany’s expensive as fuck energy.

      • marcos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        You have some of the world’s cheapest electricity wholesale. You also have a huge variance in prices to end-user, with the people that complain on the internet being among the most expensive in the world… because, of course, people that get cheaper prices don’t complain.

        Also, yes, electricity in Germany is expensive as fuck.

      • its_kim_love@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s also one of the oldest and poorly maintained for much of the country. As the data centers keep going up it’s making it harder and harder to meet customers energy needs.

  • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    2 months ago

    This argument has received responses calling me a Commie, a Tankie, and ‘a would-be enslaver of humanity’ from family, friends, and internet randoms alike.

    For me it is that I just… sorta listened to Bill Nye in the 90s about carbon dioxide.

    • mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      I am pretty sure 90% of people who get called tankies on Lemmy are not communists. Tankie-calling is by far the most obnoxious Lemmy community pastime. But I’ll give them this, it’s an extremely annoying word, much more annoying to be called than “fascist”. We need an unjustifiably smug sounding pejorative for people who call everyone tankies, to call them in exchange so that they can see how not epic their insult is.

      The key thing is that the insult needs to seem like you think it’s really badass and brave of you to call them that, and it should seem like you think they’re seething at you, when in reality it’s a super lame insult. Like so:

      “You’re a tankie”

      “Oh no the Tankie-twister has arrived!”

      “Wtf kind of lame insult is that lol”

      “Now you know how everyone else feels about being called tankies”

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          I mean, ACAB. I’m sure you can find human rights abuses anywhere you want to look.

          But what does this have to do with decarbonization? Is China’s production of photovoltaics materially more abusive than America’s production of hydrocarbons?

          Then they’re tankies.

          Was George Bush Jr a Tankie when he invaded Iraq? Is Trump a Tankie for invading Venezuela?

          Or is the whole Blood For Oil thing Based and Freedom-Pilled?

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              those who defend China and USSR as if they can’t do anything wrong

              I’ve yet to see anyone - left, right, or center - that has suggested an entire country’s worth of people has never done anything wrong in its history.

              “Tankie” has a real, actual, honest to god historical definition. Its not just “people who liked the Soviet system more than the capitalist system”. Its an explicit advocacy for non-interventionism during the Cold War. Specifically, it is British progressives who didn’t want the UK sending support to Hungarian reactionaries during the 1956 revolt.

              The British media portrayed any reluctance to intercede on behalf of anti-communists abroad as pro-Khrushchev puppets who wanted to see Russian tanks flatten all of Europe. That’s what a “Tankie” is supposed to mean. It’s a person accused (by anti-soviet British media) of wanting a Soviet conquest of the planet.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        I am pretty sure 90% of people who get called tankies on Lemmy are not communists

        It’s funny, because the term was coined back in the 1950s to describe British progressives who opposed NATO intervention in Eastern Europe.

        If anti-interventionism is what passes the bar for Communism, I suspect Lemmy might be flush with the little red bastards.

      • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        We need an unjustifiably smug sounding pejorative for people who call everyone tankies, to call them in exchange so that they can see how not epic their insult is.

        A lot of people dont deserve a reply. Works great for me. I’m sure thats been me many times in the past. (And future)

  • BotsRuinedEverything@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    No they wouldn’t. Final consumer cost is based on what people WILL pay not what they WANT to pay. At the end of the day the overarching goal of capitalism is for 99% of the population to spend 100% of their earnings. You can’t funnel all wealth to the 1% if the 99% are holding on to it.

    • ieatpwns@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      2 months ago

      So you’re telling me if I found a way reach all my fellow power company customers we could strike and lower our power rates?

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 months ago

        Many states have very regulated utility prices: you may need just a half dozen buddies and get appointed to the oversight board that approves rates

      • anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        The main problem with that is the large power consumption by industry. This is ensuring continued profits for the company and thereby weakens your influence, similar to hiring scabs.

      • BotsRuinedEverything@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        In the short term, yes. The money you’ve saved is now considered “disposable income” and will be absorbed by the next person in line.

        If a paycheck could make you wealthy, no one would give you a paycheck. A retirement account CAN make you wealthy but only after the machine has squeezed 40+ years out of you. But one way or another that money is leaving your hands and flowing back into the system.

    • crusa187@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      In a free market, people will pay less for the same service if they can.

      Capitalistic utility monopolies are a scam.

    • Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yes. BUT there are certain ways a government can help its citizens (and itself in most cases) by allowing them to be self sufficient that has nothing to do with electric companies or monopolies at all. The subsidies for solar panels were a great example of this. Depending on your personal needs, you could generate enough power to take yourself off the grid, and the government invested in your panels by way of those subsidies. In many cases the extra electricity from the panels that you don’t use can go back into a grid to be used by someone else. Theoretically helping you and the government. There are, of course some issues with the system but speaking from experience it can absolutely work and work wonderfully.

      Unfortunately Trump (of course) has killed these subsidies so that will not be a thing as of new years 2026.

      • BotsRuinedEverything@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Ok, sure. There are theoretical and convoluted ways to disconnect from the electric grid. You’re still buying solar panels. Your out of pocket costs don’t change. The river of money still flows into and out of your life. It’s called currency for a reason. The whole system is designed to stop you from keeping your money.

        The dark secret about money is that it only works when there’s isn’t enough for everyone. Despite what politicians want you to believe, you are SUPPOSED to live paycheck to paycheck- at least under a western capitalist economy. This is why poor people are both the most valuable citizens, and easiest to control. It’s slavery with more steps.

  • AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    2 months ago

    Imagine the savings to society with the energy independence from green energy

    • shut down most of the continent wide natural gas distribution infrastructure
    • shut down most of the continent wide gasoline distribution infrastructure
    • cut way back on the military when we no longer have to protect oil kingdoms
    • Doomsider@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I know your intentions are good, but this reads as a rather damning list of why a bunch of people are going to fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo.

  • carrylex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Maybe it would also be much cheaper if “your” houses were a bit smaller and had proper insulation…

      • NotBillMurray@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        2 months ago

        Have you considered inventing a time machine, going back in time, becoming a general contractor, and then building your house but smaller? Smh, people won’t go the slightest bit out of their way to make things better these days.

    • nexguy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think it would cost trillions of dollars to rebuild all houses to be smaller. Imagine the carbon footprint of that endeavor.

    • swampdownloader@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Not sure if you’re referring to USA, but the energy code in the US is quite strict. Since the 80s insulation has been required and in the last 20 years the code has tightened to be quite strict. Homes in Latin America have none, no energy code, and European housing stock predates these requirements. Doesn’t mean US homes don’t consume a ton of energy but they are probably way better insulated than average.

  • SmoochyPit@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Nuclear is also a good option. It has the potential to scale up to our generation needs faster than green energy, and it can still be environmentally clean when any byproduct is handled responsibly.

    Do I trust my government (USA) to enforce proper procedure and handling? Not really… but I do think we’re less likely to have a nuclear accident in the present day. Modern designs have many more fail safes. And I think it’d still be much cleaner than burning fossil fuels.

    I think they need to coexist, though. I think a goal in the far-future should be a decentralized grid with renewable energy sources integrated wherever they can be.

    • khepri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Basically the one nation I would have most trusted to handle nuclear safely, Japan, couldn’t even do it. The issue these days is not that the plants themselves are unsafe, it’s that we live on a active and changing planet, and accidents can and will always happen because of so-called acts of God. The problem is that nuclear, when it goes bad, tends to go mega ultra bad in ways that are very environmentally destructive and heinously expensive to clean up. So even if there is only 1/10000 the accident rate at nuclear plants that there are at other power plants, the consequences can be a million times worse.

        • khepri@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Love me some Thorium! It doesn’t address every natural-disaster type of concern as far as radiation leaks and environmental contamination, but is absolutely the better choice over Plutonium/Uranium in terms of meltdowns and nuclear waste.

      • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Would you feel better about nuclear if we expanded these rebreeder reactors I’ve heard of (uses spent nuclear waate) to the point there is no spent fuel sitting around?

        • khepri@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          yeah if we could not stick shit in the ground that remains deadly for thousands of years, with containment solutions designed to last 20-60 years, that would be great. But we just keep pretending this stuff is cleaner than it is because we’ve learned how contain the waste safely for about a single human lifespan. But just read about the slow-motion disaster that are the US nuclear superfund sites and you’ll see that you can put off the consequences of this waste for so many decades before it comes back around. And there is no waste-free nuclear tech at this point, just less wasteful.

    • FurryMemesAccount@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Also you can vastly reduce the amount of battery capacity needed by having pilotable sources of energy like nuclear, hydro, geothermy and such

        • FurryMemesAccount@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Sure hydro is a lot more pilotable, or better yet, batteries.

          But actually, turning it off 100% is probably the least important property of pilotable plants : you almost never need that. What does matter, however, is that those plants can be engineered to generally follow the daily demand curve and France’s plants can do that at the rate of about 1% per minute.

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

    Thankfully that is going to happen anyway through simple economics. Fossil fuel extraction is functionally already a peak technology, out of which every bit of efficiency has been squeezed by over 100 years of frantic and lavishly funded scientific development, whereas solar, battery, and wind technologies have been absolutely plunging in $-per-Kw to deploy and have much much further to go. So governments can try to slow this down as much as they wish, but it’s as much a fool’s errand as trying to rescue the horse industry in about 1920.

    Now as for the question of “why isn’t this more efficient technology resulting in savings for, me, the consumer?” I can only encourage you to look at the entire history of extractive, investor-driven capitalism for the answer.

    • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yeah, oil used to be the cheapest energy source for most situations (with the notable exception of mass power generation, were coal - an environmental even worse fossil fuel - was cheaper), but over the last couple of decades due to pressure on both the supply side (the easilly and cheaply extractable stuff gone) and from competing energy sources (like solar and wind-generation) oil stopped being one of the cheapest energy sources and it was pushed into just those uses were its high energy density gave it an advantage (i.e. transportation).

      With better battery technology even that advantage is being lost (so electric cars are becoming the standard), which leaves only some chemical synthesis processes as places were oil is the best option.

      Coal was kind pushed out of most of its markets long ago (hence you don’t see that many steam trains around) so it is mainly used in power generation, and the falling cost of solar is making coal uncompetitive in it.

      Gas is a little behind oil, with its main uses being domestic heating and cooking - now transiting to electric - and power generation - where renewables are now cheaper.

      The trend for fossil fuels has been obvious for decades but there is naturally a TON of inertia in the pricing changes actually resulting in the needed infrastructure changes to transition away from them plus the Economic interests which extract rents in those areas are very literally paying politicians to delay this change as much as possible hence phenomenons like many more rightwing political parties pushing anti-renewables policies.

    • frog_brawler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      In FL, even if your home fully self sustains on solar and batteries, by law you still have to pay the power company $36 a month to be connected to the grid you don’t want to be a part of.

      I left FL… over a year ago.

      Here’s the other kicker… a huge chunk of Republican campaign funding comes from the power companies. FL residents are essentially being forced to fund the campaigns of people that seek to rule over them, not represent them.

    • Pacattack57@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Brother the only way it’s cheaper to source your own panels is if you buy them outright. Less than 50% of Americans have a savings account let alone 10k in disposable income.

      If you take out a loan for the panels the payments equal what your electric bill would be and by the time you pay off the panels it’s time to replace them.

      • electricyarn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        So you paid the same amount you thought you were going to pay, your bill didn’t increase that whole time, your carbon footprint was lower and you didn’t give any money to the ratfuckers? Where is the downside?

      • moonshadow@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I had a whole thing about my setup here, but it was more than I want to share. Short version, panels are cheaper, easier to deal with, and longer lasting than you think. Most manufacturers guarantee 80% capacity after 30 years, area covered is more important than max output, there’s no need to buy the whole thing at once, 3-5k no more than 1200 at a time over a few years can get a lot of people all they need

  • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    Not to mention that in certain countries they could also get better public services if they didn’t need to spend money on a military sized for power projection into the Middle East …

  • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    Don’t even have to invest. In my area, a 100% renewable supplier was about 30% more per KWH, all of that extra overhead was paid to keep old unprofitable coal plants online. That’s capitalist efficiency for you.