224
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by Yuritopiaposadism@hexbear.net to c/technology@hexbear.net
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ClathrateG@hexbear.net 19 points 1 day ago

Batteries can be used to store excess power until needed

[-] shath@hexbear.net 10 points 1 day ago

ideally you want to use not batteries as they have to be replaced - a physical "battery" using two lakes that pump between each other for example would be a better potential energy store than a battery imo

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Feed_el_Castro@hexbear.net 26 points 1 day ago

"The problem with solar panels is that, besides being extremely clean, they also provide extremely cheap electricity"

Statements made by the utterly deranged.

load more comments (24 replies)

This is a false framing of the actual dynamic at play. The problem is not the unmonetizability of it. This IS an issue to certain capitalist forces but the much more serious problem in the eyes of the capitalist state is that solar is decentralized. Centralized power production relies on infrastucture controlled by the capitalist. Even a personal home generator needs fuel to function. Which must be bought from those who control oil supplies. Solar once bought is entirely decoupled from their control. You can have solar panels and they cannot cut you power off anymore. It is an issue of power. Not the electric kind but the political kind. Controlling energy gives a person significant power of a society. Part of this is the ability to monetize that control but it is also simply a mechanism for control. The proletariet is seen as a threat by the capitalist and so any technology or policy that would remove direct control over the lives of proles is a threat. If they cannot cut off our power it removes a way for them to stop us from rebelling against them. Food and water supplies are also centrally controlled for this region. In many regions it would be cheaper and make more sense to grow much of our own food locally and have small well or rain catchment water systems. These are not used as they would destroy central control over the proles means to live. Making the prole a threat that cannot easily be neutralized. "Off-grid" living will always be something they attempt to discourage and make possible only for the wealthy. As to live truly off grid would mean to break free from the majority of the control mechanisms that are used to keep you subservient.

[-] zedcell@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 14 hours ago

Living off grid also makes you utterly powerless to change anything, unlike the proletariat.

[-] LittleFellaNamedBoof@hexbear.net 3 points 14 hours ago

This is nonsense. Off grid literally means not reliant on the power grid. How does that make you powerless to change anything? I'm not talking about hiding in the forest. I'm talking about not being reliant on infrastucture that is controlled by the forces of capital for your basic survival needs.

[-] zedcell@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 14 hours ago

My understanding of what off-grid means is different to yours, and has a lot of other baggage like living in the woods in a homestead without a job.

Apologies for not making that clear. I agree that giving the capitalist class fewer opportunities to fuck you over if you become a thorn in their side is good.

[-] LittleFellaNamedBoof@hexbear.net 2 points 11 hours ago

Well people doing that are certainly off-grid as well. You likely heard it in reference to that and assumed it only referred to their specific situation. Like when someone says "my off grid homestead" They are saying "My homestead that is not reliant on the grid (public utility services for power/water/etc)."

The homestead is the part that means they live out in some rural area and grow all their own food.

Even for them I dont think it would be right to say they have no ability to change things though. In a revolution places like that become safehouses or food suppliers. They are also actively choosing not to participate in consumerism which is a great way to go against the capitalist class. It is true though that many of these people are the right leaning libertarian types. Yet the infrastructure they build can be seized and utilized by the revolution in a time of need, and the skills they are developing for self sufficient living, should they ever become adequately agitated, would be quite useful to a revolutionary movement.

But regardless the off grid part is just an adjective that means not reliant on public utilities. It can apply to all sorts of things. For example a solar powered Ham Radio setup could be described as "off-grid radio communications"

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] ZWQbpkzl@hexbear.net 36 points 1 day ago

This doesn't even pass an econ 101 sniff test. The market should self regulate by increasing electric usage during the day and scaling down at night. Alas the free market cannot manage such an ideal scenario.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2026
224 points (99.1% liked)

technology

24388 readers
335 users here now

On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.

Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS