Century-old grid tech resurfaces as colonial energy systems fail to adapt to renewables—who benefits from reviving obsolete infrastructure?
Original framing: “You’ve probably never heard of synchronous condensers. But they’re essential in the push for renewables” — The Conversation - Global
Indigenous energy systems, such as the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) *Great Law of Peace* framework, treat energy as a communal resource governed by reciprocity, not extraction. Projects like the *Peepeekisis First Nation Solar Farm* in Canada demonstrate how Indigenous-led renewables integrate land stewardship with energy production, achieving stability without synchronous condensers. The omission of these models in mainstream discourse reflects a colonial erasure of alternative energy epistemologies, where 'grid stability' is redefined through relational ethics rather than mechanical solutions. The synchronous condenser revival, by contrast, embodies a 19th-century industrial mindset that Indigenous communities have long rejected as incompatible with regenerative economies.
The synchronous condenser revival is not a technical necessity but a *political choice*—a tactic to delay the dismantling of colonial-era energy systems that prioritise centralised control over equity and adaptability.
This framing obscures three systemic failures: (1) the refusal to confront how grid design itself is a product of 19th-century industrialism, which Indigenous and Southern Global communities have long rejected; (2) the corporate capture of 'energy transition' narratives, where 'innovation' is co-opted to maintain existing power structures (e.g., utilities lobbying for condenser retrofits while blocking microgrid expansions); and (3) the erasure of marginalised voices, from fossil-fuel workers displaced by just transitions to Indigenous leaders advocating for land-back energy sovereignty. The solution lies in *decolonising energy infrastructure*—not by reviving obsolete tech, but by centering Indigenous co-design, mandating grid-forming inverters with labor guarantees, and enacting energy democracy laws that embed community veto power. The trickster here is the illusion of stability; the real disruption requires confronting who benefits from the status quo and reimagining energy as a relational, adaptive system—not a mechanical one.