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.

[–] Daxter101@lemmy.blahaj.zone 71 points 7 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Glass0448 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Wish there was just a faster way to get citizen input.

"Hey folks, this is going to be a cost overrun for this very very good reason, please vote yay or nay in the weekly election".

Don't see how it could work now though, given that half the citizens are deeply committed to destroying everything to prove gov doesn't work.

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Batteries are more than likely another type of pollution. I'm sure they can and will be recycled but just like the problem with our current capacity to recycle things it probably becomes untenable (guessing).

The state just needs to find ways to convert that energy into something else. I suggest desalinating sea water and pumping it up stream.

[–] DogWater@lemmy.world 18 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You can't just say battery. There's tons of energy storage that isn't chemical based. Thermal sand batteries, pumping hydro up a hill, flywheel energy storage, etc.

Energy storage doesn't inherently mean pollution

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I can only assume op meant a lithium ion battery. Based on context.

[–] DogWater@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Yeah, the cobalt and lithium is quite nasty to mine

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You gotta say what kind of battery when you make a comment like that. A bottle of pressurized gas is a battery. Not very polluting though.

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Sure you can buy a compressor and some air tanks. I imagine the turbine you need to purchase might be midly expensive. The real issue I think would be the size of the pressure vessel you would need to make it worth it.

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Right. That's why this method is used at large scale in salt mines.

[–] QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 15 points 7 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.

[–] ddkman@lemm.ee 13 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Also, let's be real here. The Lion battery farms, defeat any sort of environmental benefit. It is a total shot in the foot, which is why governments, and solar companies don't advertise the concept.

[–] SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net 30 points 7 months ago (2 children)

For a moment I was thinking that lion battery is some brand, until it clicked in that you are talking about lithium ion batteries

[–] Rekonok@sh.itjust.works 7 points 7 months ago

https://media1.tenor.com/images/4baa047d12df40f63fdeb44f0e764e91/tenor.gif

[–] ddkman@lemm.ee 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Sorry, I should have put a dash in :D Li-ion. Also another i.

[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 2 points 7 months ago

Rawr!

[–] exocrinous@startrek.website 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Just send the electricity to a neighbouring state. Sure, it'll be really inefficient to pass it through that massive length of cable, but that's fine, we don't care about that. If the interstate power infrastructure doesn't have enough capacity then first priority should be to upgrade it.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 8 points 7 months ago

That's one of the options they mention as a solution.

Basically store it, use it, ship it, subsidize it or pay someone to waste it are the options.

Right now they pay someone to waste it, which is the option that makes adoption the most difficult, so it's a problem.

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 8 points 7 months ago

America is severly lacking in UHVDC.

The peak of power demand is behind the peak of production. So sending power east makes so much sense.