this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2025
0 points (NaN% liked)

memes

23135 readers
1605 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo 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

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world
The_Picard_Maneuver@startrek.website
0
Factual btw (lemmy.world)
submitted 11 months ago by JimmyMemes@lemmy.world to c/memes@lemmy.world
3 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
top 3 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Nomorereddit@lemmy.today 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Sigh, all I see is panacea thinking....I want dank memes.

But here's some reality for you that'll destroy my karma.

The market naturally drives energy toward the lowest price because buyers choose the cheapest reliable option and producers must compete. Inefficient sources fade while the most cost effective ones grow. This happens automatically through supply and demand.

Many green technologies, depend on heavy subsidies and huge upfront costs. They promise clean and limitless power, but the real costs of materials, storage, and maintenance make them far more expensive than they seem. This makes them feel less like practical solutions and more like a comforting promise being sold as a cure for everything.

If your energy company could create very cheap energy it would. It would mean higher profits.

[–] Ogy@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Lmfao you speak with authority despite it being complete bullshit.

"Heavy subsidies and huge upfront costs" applies far far more to oil and gas than to anything else. It's only due to the massive amount of technological and economic inertia behind oil and gas that it is still around.

For building new power generation, utility-scale solar and onshore wind are now almost universally cheaper than new coal, oil, or gas-fired power plants. This threshold was passed in most of the world around the mid-2010s and has become undeniable in the 2020s.

Solar is now often cheaper than existing fossil fuel plants: In many regions, it's now cheaper to build and operate a brand-new solar farm than to just keep running an existing coal or gas plant.

"The market" doesn't operate like you get taught as a child. The vast majority of economic decisions are made by those in power to ensure they stay in power. It makes little sense for a business person to cannabalise their own industry. They have vertically integrated and are invested in the supply chain from start to finish, and there's no benefit to them for things to change. It's far easier to just impede competitors than change the course of behemoth corporations.

[–] Nomorereddit@lemmy.today -1 points 11 months ago

You opened by insulting me instead of addressing my point, which says more about your argument than mine.

Claiming solar is automatically cheaper ignores system level costs. Wind and solar need storage, backup, and major grid upgrades, and those costs are still high. That is why renewables depend on large subsidies and mandates, just as fossil fuels have historically.

If solar were truly cheaper in a complete sense, companies would switch on their own because profit is a powerful incentive. The fact that adoption still relies on policy pressure shows the picture is more complicated than the simple claim that fossil fuels only survive through inertia.