At this point we should call it embezzlement instead of investment
this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2026
1410 points (98.4% liked)
memes
20947 readers
2826 users here now
Community rules
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
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Well, they could be cheaper.
Or the power company -- the only one you're allowed to do business with -- could lower their production costs but leave your rates the same, pocketing the difference as profit.
Anything cheaper for the consumer means less profit, which means less money for bribes, which means conservative governments are against it
I vaguely recall a lemming posting a highway outdoor advertising "Green coal" or something like that. Guess that's the green energy the USA govt is investing in (also crypto bros, because they got money to buy entire fucking power plants to run their stupid coins)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Not necessarily
However, this misses the point. We need to modernize our aging infrastructure as it is on its last leg. It honestly doesn't matter what drives it as long as it gets done.
Well maybe, but only if they owned the infrastructure themselves.
As it stands, the price paid to renewable energy suppliers tracks the amount paid to fossil fuel suppliers.
There's a reason every farmer wants to fill their fields with solar panels, and it's got little to do with making electricity cheaper for the end user.
That said, there's no reason not to do it anyway, at least if we want more than a few more hundred years of humanity. A tough ask in a time where every decision is made based on an election that happens in the next 4 years by people who won't live another 20.
Energy would be so abundant it'd be free, if we'd done Fusion 50 years ago.
Maybe Nuclear, given it can actually support the base load power, except they need to fully deregulate it first so Nimbys and lawsuits balloon the cost. It shouldnt cost more nowadays in inflation adjusted terms than France building them in the 70s.
Your talking points are ten years out of date. The cheapest form of baseload power now is batteries plus solar. For seasonal variations? Nuclear is so expensive that it's far cheaper to just build enough to meet your winter electricity demand and have abundant power the rest of the year.
Fission is a dead end technology that people mostly support now so they can feel a sense of contrarian intellectual superiority. It's all just vibes at this point.
Do you have an example of a city that runs on renewables with battery storage with no duplicate backup base load generator?
As far as I was aware there were none, as it is non-feasible outside of areas with hydro dams for power storage.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Unfortunately Trump has no ability to think about a future past tomorrow much less one that benefits anyone other than himself, so there’s no chance this will be fixed until he’s replaced.
The UK is spending billions on green energy and has the highest electricity prices in the world.
Yep. Meanwhile the US has some of the cheapest and is mainly Natural Gas.
Plug and play solar and wind are the future:
- Solar
https://www.amazon.com/SOLPERK-Maintainer-Waterproof-Controller-Adjustable/dp/B08GX19KT9?
- Wind
https://www.amazon.com/pofluany-Generator-Controller-Turbines-Windmill/dp/B0D1VHSHNH?
- Wind, not plug and play, but you get the idea
https://www.amazon.com/VEVOR-500W-Wind-Turbine-Generator/dp/B0D3T9Q6QC?
- You would need a few of these and also not plug and play
This 500W vertical axis wind turbine utilizes a helical design and a permanent magnet generator to operate effectively in low wind speed environments. Its high power output and low starting wind speed make it ideal for maximizing energy production.
https://www.amazon.com/Vertical-Generator-Permanent-Intelligent-Controller/dp/B0DSC27VD1?
How does this handle grid power outages?
In my area, you're required to prevent back feeding if the grid goes down (otherwise it can be hazardous for the linemen repairing the issue).
It can also be hazardous for electricians or DIY home repairs if they don't know about it.
Oh, you think you're safe because you turned the house's power off at the main breaker? Forgot about the solar panels backfeeding into the panel -- all the circuits are still live!
(Or, even more fun, only half the breakers in the panel are still live, since the solar panels are only feeding into one of the two phases. So maybe you test to make sure the power is off by turning on the lights, and the lights don't turn on so you think you're safe. But the power outlets you're about to work on are on a different circuit, one that's on the same phase as the solar, so they're still live. Fun stuff!)
All that's to say... You should definitely still do home solar if you can. But document it well, and establish ways to disconnect power to ensure safety!
They all have controllers? I'm guessing it's all done through that. You'll probably want to be careful when you get one for your specific area that it follows all of the laws.
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.
We don't just do it for cheapness sake. We mainly do it for sustainability. Cheapness and abundance is a bonus.
load more comments
(8 replies)
Remember how now that countries have stopped recognizing US medial science we see cures for cancer coming out of the woodwork? Yeah....
load more comments
(2 replies)
So, the government. Where does it come from?
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/