1670
consider the implications for a post scarcity future (slrpnk.net)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/solarpunk@slrpnk.net
386 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 2 years ago (10 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (9 children)

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

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

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

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

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    The person you're responding to is talking about physics, not economics.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (3 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

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

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

    Base load electricity will likely have this future.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent