Oh, they’ll do the ad campaigns and raise the prices in the name of green-ness.
A classic example of this is electric utilities charging more and saying "all our electricity comes from renewable sources!" while ignoring the fact that renewable energy is typically cheaper for them to buy on the market.
Nothing wrong with saving money by doing something objectively good, so that's frankly a lousy example..
You misunderstand. I'm saying the end user energy company justifies being on the more expensive side by advertising that they use renewables, but actually when they buy electricity renewables is cheaper for them. So they're paying less but charging the end user more.
The cost saving of renewables is rarely passed on to the consumer.
Ah ok, NOW I see what you're getting at! That IS pretty scummy!
Still not as scummy as still relying on fossil fuel now that there's literally no good reason to, though..
I mean there is some reason not to, at least until proper alternatives are set up. I work in the HV industry, and in my opinion we've rushed to close larger, relatively efficient coal plants and replace them with smaller, far less efficient diesel and gas generators that can be hidden behind tall fences in industrial estates. These pollute far more per MW than coal plants, but they're out of sight, out of mind.
We definitely should be going hard into current renewable technology to fill out demand. That's the fastest way to net zero in many regions. There is something to be said for big rotating generators though, ie large turbines, as these provide voltage and frequency stability - renewables are often inverter driven, even wind turbines, so these are always following the grid and can destabilise if voltage or frequency goes. Meanwhile, a large machine has inertia so it will want to keep spinning and maintain the same output when large loads switch in and out. This sort of thing can be provided by nuclear power. So if we build lots of renewables now to get clean, then build nuclear to fill out, that might be the best solution.
I could go into detail about the many ways in which you're wrong, but it's frankly not worth the time and effort, especially with the detailed back and forth that would inevitably follow, so I'll just cut to the chase and summarise:
NO
I mean, most of what I said is backed up by a Future Energies Study, that went into far more depth than you or I are aware of, but you go ahead and think you know better.
I want to embrace discussion here. Please specify these "many ways".
There's difference between "embracing" and "forcing". I already said I didn't want to and why.
A classic example of this is electric utilities charging more and saying "all our electricity comes from renewable sources!" while ignoring the fact that renewable energy is typically cheaper for them to buy on the market.
Nothing wrong with saving money by doing something objectively good, so that's frankly a lousy example..
You misunderstand. I'm saying the end user energy company justifies being on the more expensive side by advertising that they use renewables, but actually when they buy electricity renewables is cheaper for them. So they're paying less but charging the end user more.
The cost saving of renewables is rarely passed on to the consumer.
Ah ok, NOW I see what you're getting at! That IS pretty scummy!
Still not as scummy as still relying on fossil fuel now that there's literally no good reason to, though..
I mean there is some reason not to, at least until proper alternatives are set up. I work in the HV industry, and in my opinion we've rushed to close larger, relatively efficient coal plants and replace them with smaller, far less efficient diesel and gas generators that can be hidden behind tall fences in industrial estates. These pollute far more per MW than coal plants, but they're out of sight, out of mind.
We definitely should be going hard into current renewable technology to fill out demand. That's the fastest way to net zero in many regions. There is something to be said for big rotating generators though, ie large turbines, as these provide voltage and frequency stability - renewables are often inverter driven, even wind turbines, so these are always following the grid and can destabilise if voltage or frequency goes. Meanwhile, a large machine has inertia so it will want to keep spinning and maintain the same output when large loads switch in and out. This sort of thing can be provided by nuclear power. So if we build lots of renewables now to get clean, then build nuclear to fill out, that might be the best solution.
I could go into detail about the many ways in which you're wrong, but it's frankly not worth the time and effort, especially with the detailed back and forth that would inevitably follow, so I'll just cut to the chase and summarise:
NO
I mean, most of what I said is backed up by a Future Energies Study, that went into far more depth than you or I are aware of, but you go ahead and think you know better.
I want to embrace discussion here. Please specify these "many ways".
There's difference between "embracing" and "forcing". I already said I didn't want to and why.