1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
I think the best move would be to remove soft costs and artificial barriers to supply across the board, whether it’s green energy or fossil fuels. The government shouldn’t be in the business of picking winners and losers, since that’s the source of much of the lobbying and corruption we see. Ideally, we’d rely on a system of profit and loss to signal the best use of resources, rather than having outside interference distort those signals and create bubbles.
If the electricity bill would be lower people would use more energy and switch to electric cars real fast. I'm sure some people would not change their habits, but I'm inclined to think a lot of people would just use more and care a bit less about trying to use it as efficiently as possible.
Just take cars as an example. Everyone wants low gas prices, but when gas prices are low, people are buying bigger cars that consumes more gas/energy. Another example are places with renewable energy powering the grid, having cheaper electricity, but also ending up using more per person.
The province of Québec is one of the biggest consumer of electricity per inhabitant in the world, behind Iceland and Norway. Source in French.
Those places have super high percentages of cheap renewable energy being generated, but they also consume much more per inhabitant. Sure, if we cover the earth in solar panels, reservoirs, tap geothermal, and have enough energy to waste for everybody, and every manufacture. But this takes resources, space, batteries, and ends up polluting too. The less we need, the better it is for everyone.
I'm not saying we don't need renewable nor deserve lower bills. Just that the actual system of consumption cannot only be reduced to "more cheap renewable energy". I'm in Québec and energy is mostly renewable and relatively cheap here. But we also can't just continue to build giant reservoirs visible from space to quench our insatiable appetite for electricity. We'll have to learn to use less energy too; be more efficient with what we have. Not just convert everything to renewable and call it a day.
How does this article manage to say so many things about energy use in arctic tundras without even once recognizing that just maybe it takes more energy to heat a living space in an arctic tundra? Bafflingly stupid analysis.
Honestly, if anyone is talking the freaking arctic when discussing the energy transition, they're a bad faith actor and can be completely ignored. We care about the bulk of energy usage. The tiny little remainder is irrelevant. A few innuit can keep their gas generators for all I care.
Have you read it? Translated or in French? Because this is a list of facts, with a conclusion addressing what you are pointing out. It's literally from the government of the province.
Le Québec, avec son climat hivernal rigoureux, connaît des besoins élevés en puissance électrique lors de périodes de grand froid, alors que toute la population doit se chauffer simultanément. Ces épisodes, appelés périodes de pointe de puissance, ne durent que quelques heures par année, mais exercent une pression sur le réseau.
Translated: The province of Québec, with its cold climate, has high energetic needs during the peaks of extreme cold periods, because the whole population has to heat their homes at the same time. Those periods, called power peaks, are only lasting for a few hours every year, but are putting pressure on the network.
Also, those places have summer. Most of the population in Québec and Norway don't live in an arctic tundra.
A few hours a year? That's what batteries are for.
I guess the issue I have is less the report itself, but the way you are trying to wield it to prove that the concept of induced demand which is not what the report is talking about at all.
It would be cheaper to just end most of the oil subsidiaries and move some of those subsidies to solar/wind/etc. refineries and processing and distribution, while profits are private, are heavily funded by public tax or tax breaks on profits.
https://www.fractracker.org/2025/03/fossil-fuel-subsidies-free-market-myth/
Thorium nuclear plants to replace coal and natural gas power stations to provide the energy required to build the solar panels, wind turbines, and geo thermal systems to transition away from fossil fuels.
So what you’re saying is - if the government spent more money, they would make less money off of us in utilities bills…. Makes sense
Green energy can't be scarce, therefore cheap. Solar, wind, water, never happen. They can always slow the generators, can't slow the sun.
You need a place to store that energy, a way to convert it so it's usable, transfer it to where it is needed. Etc.
Guess the problem with green energy (hint: it's not the fact that it's better for the environment)
Us is pathetic. Nothing is planned.
No direction. Every 4 years fuckers change shit.
Centrally planned china can run circles around
Fun Fact: Doesn't really work in Winter.
Source: EU countries that don't have a ton of cheap gas, flowing water or nuclear power and unlimited storage.