Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

progree

(11,463 posts)
7. ...
Tue Oct 1, 2024, 05:08 PM
Oct 1

Last edited Tue Oct 1, 2024, 09:46 PM - Edit history (1)

However, if the point you are making is that the wind is always blowing when the sun isn't shining, and there really are people paying for "100% renewable energy" and getting it without accounting tricks, I am not likely to believe you. Fossil fuels are burned to keep their lights on reliably and all the time; that is undeniable.


OK, don't. But if they use 100 MWH to produce the hydrogen and run the station, and produce 100 MWH or more from dedicated green(er) sources, then I'm going to give their claim a pass. At NSP we didn't consider it an "accounting trick" when we purchased power from a specific unit operated by another utility, nor did the other utility.

I realize those are big ifs. As I said before (some may have come in late edits like the thing about NSP's Windsource), I am dubious about any claim, but maybe if you write Quantron a letter showing that some must come from fossil fuel (and that isn't made up for by causing equal fossil fuel reduction at other times), they will concede that they made it all up.

I am also dubious about counterclaims, especially linkless assertions of opinion as fact (it's an accounting trick), especially ones along the lines of "since most ... therefore all".

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Explosion damages newly o...»Reply #7