World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
I'm happy to provide some real answers to you questions if you're looking for discussion. Some of the answers I don't personally like myself, but they make sense. I say this as a solar advocate as I am happily watching my own solar production climbing with the change of the season.
If you're just looking to rant though, I won't get in your way.
I appreciate your attempt to engage in good faith, but no, my question was very rhetorical. I am not really interested in discussing any answers to that question that neither you nor I would support. If you do have an argument to make, feel free to do so. I may or may not respond. But in case my own point's not clear, I think most of the opposition to solar panels comes from disingenuous efforts by companies with a financial interest in fossil-fuel, and I think they try to cast it in as negative a light as they possibly can, and I don't think their perspective is even worth considering as they continue their ghastly sprint to destroy the future of life on this planet so they can earn money.
I understand. I've faced some of the same frustrations I'm feeling in your post.
Most is, I agree. However there are some truthful reasons too because of currently deployed infrastructure or technological limitations, but I agree the majority of anti-solar/ant-wind are bad faith arguments used by fossil fuel invested companies and industries to continue to justify their existence.
Warning: GIANT WALL of text incoming. Buckle up.
We all know what happens when there isn't enough power on the grid at a given moment: a blackout.
However, do you know what the extreme result of too much power on the grid is at a given moment? Also a blackout.
Curtailment
The term to start reading up on is "curtailment". Its used in demand (consumption of electricity) but also supply (generating electricity). Meaning grid operators are always on a knife's edge of generating just enough electricity on the grid without being too much. For a small amount of waste, they have ways to burn it off. Think giant space heaters running outside. The loss of money from that "burned off" electricity is there, but its not that big and its considered a cost of doing business. However, there isn't much "burn off" capacity infrastructure. Historically there hasn't needed to be.
Grid operators usually have systems of communication they use to contact their generation partners and ask for more juice to be produced, or more frequently these days telling them to hold off generation. At the grid level though, this isn't like a light switch of "on and off" it can take many minutes or even hours for a grid scale generator to spin up or spin down generation. Also these systems aren't meant to be rapidly spun up and down so it gets expensive to operate like that.
So up to know its just been the grid operator guessing demand needs and talking to a handful of generators to scale up and down. Now with massive amounts of electricity generated by thousands of smaller operators (residential as well as smaller commercial) there isn't the same mechanism for the grid operators to halt production.
So what happens when there is a huge excess of electricity and that relatively small "burn off" capacity is quickly consumed? If that excess electricity is allowed through, things literally blow up in the electrical grid, in businesses, and in homes. Those gigawatts of electricity that cannot be allowed to exist on the grid. So grid operators can use another mechanism to try to burn off that excess electricity: negative electricity prices. They can pay people and businesses to use the excess. A note here, in the years and decades ahead, our society will evolve to use this excess more efficiently by timing high consumption at times of excess, but except in a few small examples, we just aren't there yet. If there aren't enough people taking money to use the electricity, the grid operator may have to cut off sections of grid to keep from blowing them up. Here's the blackout from too much electricity. A full blackout also means coming back online later is a much slower process as sections of the grid are brought up slowly to make sure the demand can meet supply.
Even in state sponsored electrical grids (like I assume France is), grid operators are expected to cover their own costs at least when providing the electricity service to the state. So forget that they still have to maintain the grid with all its equipment and employees when electricity prices are at zero, during these peak times they're having to pay people to use more electricity. So even if they were at break-even before, they're now at a loss because they've had to give out money to use their service. Again, in the future societies and technologies (power storage) can address this, but we're not in the future. We're here today with these problems. At its extreme, how many of us will continue to work at if we aren't receiving a paycheck?
Grid forming/Grid following
One other difference in grid scale generators vs many/most solar generators is the responsibility for forming the grid. This means, keeping the frequency (60Hz in the North America and half of Japan) (50Hz in most of the rest of the world and the other half of Japan). This is done by grid scale generators with GIANT spinning generators and are required by their mandate to make sure the frequency is always stable.
Imagine a game of tug-of-war. The grid scale operator would be the leader closest to the middle and the leader of the team. This is the grid former. All the solar producers are behind the leader all pulling at the leader's instructions. These are the grid followers. So in the middle of a match it is clear that our team is losing and slowing being pulled toward the line. The grid followers don't want to be hurt in the fall, so some of them start dropping the rope protecting themselves. As each one drops, the amount of force on the leader and those remaining increases. More team members drop the rope. The forces increase again! The leader cannot drop the rope because they are not allowed to even though they can see what's coming and is eventually very violently pulled across the line and seriously hurt while all the team members (grid followers) are unharmed because they dropped the rope before anything bad happened to them.
This is what happened in Texas a year or so ago. The result was huge blackouts across the state.
It should be celebrated, but it should also be recognized that it creates its own set of problems. We can't simply "take the win" and not make any changes. We've got systems set up for different circumstances and we haven't change the system even though the circumstances have changed.
I'm still learning things like this for myself, so I'm happy to share knowledge.
The tug-of-war was my third attempt at an analogy when I was writing this, so I'm glad the concepts made it through. I was thinking I should have put made Squid Games reference for more clarity about the stakes, like this:
Oh, don't worry, as I understand it there is still plenty of ERCOT negligence. Apparently Texas's ability to deal with over-production or under-production is seriously compromised because of its very small connection to the other grids around Texas (by intentional Texas design). From memory, there's a small link west of Texas through New Mexico, but it can only pull or push a tiny fraction of the electricity riding on the Texas grid so its effectively useless to handle big gridscale swings.
Texas has finally figured out this is a bad idea, and got a check written by Biden's DoE for $360M to make big boy connections to the national power grids. source.
I'm fine with some of my non-Texas tax money going to help the people of Texas step into to the grid the rest of us use. We're all citizens of the USA after all. That is unless Musk and trump decide that $360M is waste that Texas doesn't deserve and cancels the grant through DOGE. Then Texas is back where it started or will have to foot the entire bill themselves.
I just thought of a reason why trying to explain the downsides of solar power generation always goes so poorly for me.
Where I live, solar=good is a given. No amount of oil lobbying can overcome the simple fact that thanks to historically heavy subsidies, PV is free money and therefore anti-solar sentiment is fringe because everyone loves free money.
(Which is its own can of worms because ungoverned PV has externalities which the owners may not be bearing or only partially, while people who can't install PV are essentially using up some of their own taxes to give a tax break to the bourgeois down the street with a solar mansion, and sure that's more solar which is environmentally good but it's also another indirect tax on the poor which is socially deleterious).
Anyway my point is that in a country where nearly everyone has PV or wishes they did, I don't see any issue with plainly stating "PV is causing major headaches to grid operators". Because pragmatically we need to justify solutions like dynamic pricing, solar taxes, and the phaseout net metering which are predictably unpopular policies with PV owners who were promised endless riches.
But I suppose from a North American perspective where "renewable energy is good" is somehow the fringe opinion and PV deployment is pathetic, then it makes sense to push back against such messaging.
Nah, let'er rip. Just a clueless bystander here. Tell us why capitalism demonizes free energy. We'll pretend to be shocked, surprised and to have learned something new along the way.
Do keep in mind that "lost profits" are not a real thing in the space we're trying to move in.
Capitalism demonizes anything free because free is the antithesis of a version of trade that requires differing values of goods.
Keep in mind MOST of the arguments you hear are bad faith fossil fuel operators so I'm not going to defend those. However, there are a number of issues that this abundance of temporary solar energy creates today with the systems and infrastructure we have deployed today. Keep in mind grid operators are measuring and changing the grid an intervals of fractions of a second to keep everything up and running.
Primary difficulties:
Our grids today aren't built the way they need to to properly take advantage of large scale solar. We need to change how grids are built, and how we behave with how we use electricity as consumers and businesses.