this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2026
559 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

82549 readers
3253 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
559
Easy-to-use solar panels are coming, but utilities are trying to delay them (www.npr.org)
submitted 1 day ago by fuzzyfirefox@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
239 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world -2 points 21 hours ago

If power generation becomes so cheap that it can’t sustain the company then don’t rely on that for revenue.

I'm not aware of anywhere power generation is that cheap yet. That may be a problem for the future when commercial fusion is viable, but thats likely a lifetime away.

I’d rather pay a flat rate for the infrastructure and operating costs than a fluctuating generation charge.

I think everyone would, but the cost for generation is always fluctuating because the variation in the market for the fuels that generate electricity, supply, and demand of electricity on the market. If its a flat rate, and that rate is below the cost of generating the electricity, who pays?