Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Amazon Battles Google for Renewable Energy Crown (bloomberg.com)

Posted by msmash on from the good-fights dept.

Readers share a report: Even in the age of coal enthusiast President Donald Trump, clean-energy developers are finding plenty of interest in wind and solar power from businesses with sustainability targets, especially technology companies. That was on display in a video tweeted Thursday by Amazon.com Chief Executive Officer Jeff Bezos, as he christened the 253-megawatt Amazon Wind Farm Texas in Scurry County. Amazon has bought more than 1.22 gigawatts of output to date from U.S. clean-energy projects, second only to Alphabet's Google, with 1.85 gigawatts. Corporations have agreed to buy 1.9 gigawatts of clean power in the U.S. this year, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, and are on pace to match the 2.6 gigawatts signed last year.

35 of 51 comments (clear)

  1. Per-capita emissions is the wrong measure! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What matters is the total emissions of the country, divided by its population.

    That's totally incorrect. You're only focusing on emissions (a byproduct of consumption), without considering utility. You aren't considering what was achieved using the energy obtained by each unit of per-capita greenhouse gas emission!

    The question you're asking is, "How much emissions did each person generate?", when the question we should be asking is, "How much productivity was generated from the emissions that each person generated?"

    You need to compare per-capita emissions against a measure like the GDP or the GNP of the nation in question.

    When you do that, it turns out that the United States, and most Western nations, are actually among the most efficient users of energy. That is, they get the most productivity out of each unit of emission.

    Let's look at a simplified example. The activity of a per-capita American may result in, say, 10 units of emission, while the activity of a per-capita African may result in only 1 unit of emission. But with those 10 units of emission the per-capita American is able to achieve, say, 1000 units of productive work for each unit of emission. The African, on the other hand, is only achieving, say, 10 units of productive work for each unit of emission.

    When we break it down into a proper measure like that, we see that the American has a far greater utilization. The American is doing far more productive work with each unit of emission than the African. To turn it around, in order for the African to produce as much as the American then the African would need to emit far more greenhouse gases!

    Your comment highlights a serious problem with environmentalists: they often have a total lack of understanding of economics. They can understand the first-order concepts, such as the total volume of greenhouse gas emissions. And they can kind of understand the second-order concepts, such as the amount of greenhouse gas emitted per individual of a population. But that's where their comprehension stops. Unfortunately, that's where economics begins! It's the third-order concepts, such as how much work is obtained from each unit of emission, that we should be considering. But like your comment shows, you don't get this far into the analysis. You stop prematurely, and thus totally miss out on the economic aspect of this issue.

    1. Re:Per-capita emissions is the wrong measure! by fred6666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's totally incorrect. You're only focusing on emissions (a byproduct of consumption), without considering utility. You aren't considering what was achieved using the energy obtained by each unit of per-capita greenhouse gas emission!

      It's a feature, not a bug.
      Even if we double the utility (GDP, GNP, whatever) of the planet, we can't double our CO2 emissions.

      I would also point out that if we double the population of the planet, we can't double our CO2 emissions and this is also true. So the CO2 per capita metric is only valid as long as the population of the planet remains the same. When the population increase, the CO2 per capita of all countries should be reduced too, but you get the idea.

      Now, rich countries with high GDP per capita should be free to buy emissions credit from poorer countries emitting a lot less per capita. Let's let the market decide what is the most efficient way to use CO2. But we can't let the market decide what level of CO2 is sustainable for the planet.

      You stop prematurely, and thus totally miss out on the economic aspect of this issue.

      I am pretty sure we both understand the economic aspect of this issue. The problem is, you can't face the consequences, which are that rich countries, in which we probably both live, have to reduce CO2 emissions by a wide margin.

    2. Re:Per-capita emissions is the wrong measure! by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      Just think about it another way:

      Let's imagine a planet with 10 people. All 10 of them produce the same utility ($1 each per year) and emit the same amount of CO2 yearly (1 ton).
      One day, two of them have a good idea and can produce more utility which allows them to double their utility output to $2. They live in larger houses and get big cars.
      So by your logic, they should have the right to emit twice as much CO2. The previous emissions were 10 tons, but now that raised to 12.
      Are you saying a 20% increase in CO2 is acceptable? The Earth doesn't care about your utility. The other solution is to get the other 8 to reduce their emissions. But why should they care if 2 of their neighbors increased their utility? It doesn't even benefit them. Why should they have to sacrifice?

      Let say one of the 8 now decide to work and consume less. By doing so, he manages to reduce his utility by 50, while reducing his CO2 output by 0.25 ton. By your logic, you'd blame that person, because his productivity per unit of emission is now worse than the other 9, even though he actually contributed to a better environment, which benefit everyone.

      And you call that the economic aspect of the issue? I couldn't disagree more.

  2. Re:The US "green energy" system is flawed. by ranton · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What happens when Amazon or Google buy 1 GW of green power, does a coal plant gets shut down? No. What happen is that the typical home customer has its share of green power reduced from say, 4% to 3%. The production remains the same. What matters is the total emissions of the country, divided by its population. The US continue to be one of the worst.

    Yes, coal plants do get shut down. US utilities have plans to close 40 coal power plants over the next four years. These plants are primarily shut down because of competition with natural gas and renewal energy. So when Amazon or Google buy 1 GW of green power, that is 1 GW less that coal power plants are making in revenue. That causes power plants to be shut down.

    US residential electricity sales have been going down since 2010 in both total figures and per capita figures. This is both because of energy efficiency improvements and cheaper forms of energy production. US carbon emissions are going down because of these trends.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  3. Giga watts? or Giga wattHOURS? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Gigawatts? or Gigawatt HOURS?

    It makes a big difference.

    Buying a Gigawatt means buying the ability to draw up to a Gigawatt from a supplier. That might end up being anywhere from nothing to a Gigawatthour EVERY HOUR - 8,766 Gigawatt hours (about 8.8 Terrawatt hours) every year.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  4. Sorry, doesn't work that way. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What happens when Amazon or Google buy 1 GW of green power, does a coal plant gets shut down? No. What happen is that the typical home customer has its share of green power reduced from say, 4% to 3%. The production remains the same.

    No.

    What happens is, with a guaranteed customer with concentrated loads (and no need to cut a deal with a power distribution company to sell THEM the power), an investor builds renewable-energy plants near the Amazon or Google sites and starts selling them the power. So more generation DOES get built for the projects, and the consumers' mix is not impacted as you describe.

    (In the short run such big projects may push the price of equipment up slightly, but in the long run they enable economy-of-scale manufacturing that brings the price down.)

    Photovoltic panels, for instance, beat grid power once they cost less than a dollar per watt. Market price in 10-panel pallet loads was $0.33 last I looked, and even the domestic panel manufacturers who won the anti-dumping decision are only asking for a price floor of $0.78.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  5. Don't buy too MANY bitcoins... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    You only need 1.21 gigawatts to travel back in time, buy Bitcoins at USD$0.008, become the most powerful company on the planet and simply buy out any and all competitors before they become a threat.

    Don't buy too MANY of the Bitcoins. You might get back to now and find out that the market that drove their price up never developed and theyr're worth nothing.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Don't buy too MANY bitcoins... by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

      You only need 1.21 gigawatts to travel back in time, buy Bitcoins at USD$0.008, become the most powerful company on the planet and simply buy out any and all competitors before they become a threat.

      Don't buy too MANY of the Bitcoins. You might get back to now and find out that the market that drove their price up never developed and theyr're worth nothing.

      Actually, that's as good an explanation of why bitcoins have risen in price as any other: time travellers bought them up.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    2. Re:Don't buy too MANY bitcoins... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Every time you read about a hard drive with a large number of bitcoins that was "lost", it was really a time traveller gathering them and bringing them forward to some future time.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  6. 1.21 jiggawatts! by havock · · Score: 1

    is all I could think about when I saw Amazon's number

  7. Where's the nukes? by blindseer · · Score: 1

    I'll believe people are serious about CAGW when I see the US start to built nuclear reactors at a rate that is equal to that of shutting down old coal and nuclear. A quick Google search tells me that 6GW of coal was retired in the first half of 2016. If we assume a new nuclear power plant has a capacity of 1 GW (which is pretty common) then we should see a new nuclear power plant in the USA every month. My quick search only verified what I've heard elsewhere, we will need 1 GW of new nuclear power capacity from now until the sun goes out just to keep up with current demand as old power plants are retired.

    Wind is nice, I guess. It's not too expensive, compared to what we pay now for electricity, but being unreliable has it's costs. Solar on a utility scale is just plain stupid, it's too expensive, too unreliable, and takes up a lot of valuable real estate that'd be put to better use growing food, mitigating floods, and so on. Use hydro when and where you can but that goes only so far. Bio-fuels are just an environmental disaster, I cannot understand how "environmentalists" consider that an option. Nuclear has a zero carbon footprint (or as close to zero as any other "zero carbon" energy source), it's safe, it's inexpensive, and requires no more resources than coal or natural gas, and a fraction of the resources as wind and solar.

    One great thing about nuclear is it can take on a hurricane and keep going, recent events prove this. Windmills and solar panels don't handle these storms well. A nuclear power plant tends to be in a large concrete building that even an airplane slamming into it won't stop it. Wind and solar are necessarily exposed to damage.

    It boggles the mind that we've ignored nuclear power for so long. I guess the powers that be just aren't taking the threat of CAGW seriously, so why should I?

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    1. Re:Where's the nukes? by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      You clearly have no idea how many of nuclear's real costs are passed on to the taxpayer. Did you know damages in the event of a problem are capped at a tiny fraction of any reasonable cleanup cost...with the balance to be paid by the government? It's the only way they can get insurance companies to cover a nuclear generating plant. Not many accidents, but when they happen, hold onto your wallet!

      And every nuclear plant I've ever heard of went over budget one way or another. The one currently waving in front of our face in Ontario is the Darlington refit. It's barely started, and it's already 2 1/2 years behind and more than $300 million over budget.

      Taking care of the waste isn't cheap, either. Nor is cleaning up the tailings from uranium mining. Mostly, taxpayers are on the hook for that, too.

      There's lots more, but frankly, I don't have time to spoon-feed you basic information

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    2. Re:Where's the nukes? by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Everything you list is something that can be fixed through proper management. Perhaps we could, I'm just tossing this out there, have a competition on the best designs based on safety and cost. That would require that we actually build nuclear reactors. Those that come in on budget and on time get to build another. It's almost like capitalism works to our benefit or something.

      The alternatives to fixing the broken laws we live under that manage nuclear power and fission products is CAGW or the lights going out. Maybe some day we'll find something else but right now we have three choices, nuclear power, CAGW, or energy poverty.

      If people fear nuclear power more than CAGW then CAGW is nothing to fear. I'm not taking any "environmentalist" seriously if they do not support the building of more nuclear power.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    3. Re:Where's the nukes? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      I'll believe people are serious about CAGW when I see the US start to built nuclear reactors at a rate that is equal to that of shutting down old coal and nuclear.

      This. Germany is a great example. They have decided shutting down nuclear plants is more important that carbon emissions reductions. Had they not shut down any units they would have shown significant reductions, but because they have shut them down they have made insignificant progress on reductions from electrical generation even with their massive investments in wind and solar. And when they take the next unit off line (next year), emissions will increase.

      People like to argue about the cost, but all we need to do is build a lot, and with the experience and infrastructure cost, schedule and risk will diminish. South Koreans have already proven you can build on time on schedule on budget, they have developed the infrastructure. Everyone knows this, but the anti-nuke crowd won't ever admit it. What they also won't ever admit to is that wind and solar plus storage, or the alternative of building tremendous overcapacity cost a lot more. Even if storage drops to 1/10 what it costs now in the next 15 years, its simply no affordable on the scale we need.

      So, yes, I'm with you. If anyone says they want to remove the one tool that's generated more clean air than any other from the toolbox because they ideologically oppose it, then they are saying that their ideology is more important to them than addressing CO2 emissions. Germany is a great example. They've gotten to 20% wind and solar annual generation and are hitting the limits of their infrastructure. They've needed new coal plants to support the mix, and because they've cut nuclear they are making insignificant progress while having skyrocketing energy costs and are needing to find new taxes to pay for future wind and solar additions. Why others insist that is the way to go is beyond me.

    4. Re:Where's the nukes? by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Germany is a good example. I have more.

      African nations kept in poverty over UN "green energy" mandates.
      https://www.thegwpf.com/james-...

      Australia is feeling the pain too.
      https://www.thegwpf.com/global...

      I happened across something on Germany.
      http://notrickszone.com/2017/1...

      An article on the general threats posed to real people today by "green energy" mandates.
      http://www.cfact.org/2017/10/0...

      I find the corn ethanol mandates exceedingly frustrating. That's food we are burning while people need to eat. Not only that I'll read about farmers buying this "brewer's grain" (the stuff left over from turning corn into ethanol) and feeding it to cattle. The problem is that while this grain has protein and minerals it doesn't have enough calories. What do the farmers do then? They buy up discarded corn syrup laden candy and mix it with the grain. Here's an idea, how about we give the corn to the cattle and send the candy to the ethanol producers? We can't do that though because using discarded candy to make ethanol isn't "green" enough, or some shit.

      I know people complain that feeding corn to cattle is "unnatural" or something. Well, is feeding cattle brewer's grain mixed with expired Hershey bars somehow "better"? It must be because the laws that the "environmentalists" got passed made this happen.

      To those that think we should not eat meat I'll say this, fuck you. If you want to talk about eating "naturally" then what's more natural than going out hunting for wild deer? People have been eating meat for a very long time. Domesticating animals might be recent on the grand scheme of things be we need meat in our diet to be healthy and to hunt for population control. What's wrong with going out to hunt a deer? Or a wild pig? Or hunt a bear? Speaking of which, hunting bans on polar bears has created a polar bear over population problem.
      http://dailycaller.com/2017/10...

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    5. Re:Where's the nukes? by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      You raise excellent points about "proper management". Somehow, it just never seems to happen. When I took business law back in high school, one of the first things we learned is that in a basic contract, if costs go too high, the contractor shouldn't have bid so low and gets to pay the difference. That never happens with these contracts, and I've never heard a convincing explanation for it.

      Also, there's no reason why we should even be considering building basically the same kind of generating stations we've been building for the last half century. There are several really encouraging new reactors at or near pilot plant stage. If government's going to be involved, which is a given, then ONLY new technology should be considered. Thorium reactors would be one example.

      It's also becoming increasingly obvious that solar, wind and probably also geothermal and tidal generation is going to be a bigger and bigger part of the mix, along with decentralized generation. The days of the electrical grid as we know it are numbered. Nuclear needs to get with that generating profile or get out of the game. Small reactors powering a town or city would be a hell of a lot more helpful for what's coming than the idea of a giant plant feeding a huge regional grid.

      I want to be really, really clear: I am NOT anti-nuclear. I am, however, 100% against nuclear generation as it is currently done in both of our countries. Right now, it's a money-sucking parasite making a bunch of faceless corporations and their pet bureaucrats rich.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    6. Re:Where's the nukes? by blindseer · · Score: 1

      It's also becoming increasingly obvious that solar, wind and probably also geothermal and tidal generation is going to be a bigger and bigger part of the mix, along with decentralized generation.

      No, it's not obvious. We've been dumping money into "bootstrapping" the wind and solar energy industries for a very long time now through subsidies and other laws that make them profitable by fiat. Whenever there is a threat to end, or even reduce, the subsidies my mailbox fills with fliers to call my congresscritters. If wind and solar cannot stand on their own then they cannot grow beyond what the government spends on propping them up.

      People all over the world are getting tired of increasing energy prices, reduced availability/reliability, and no real CO2 reductions to show for it. Germany found out that for every 4MW of installed wind capacity that there must be 3MW of natural gas as backup. That puts a hard limit on how much wind can contribute to the grid at less than 25%. Solar has similar problems. Storage technologies won't help because if there is a big battery to supply the peak demands then a utility will use whatever is cheapest, not necessarily "greenest", to charge that up. That means coal, natural gas, or nuclear.

      For wind and solar to compete with coal and nuclear they must be not only as cheap, or only cheaper by a small margin, but must be a fraction of the cost. I say that because of what people in the industry already know, and Germany has made clear to anyone that has a mild interest in this, is that wind and solar are far too unreliable to provide any significant portion of our electricity needs. The utilities can tolerate 30% capacity factors from wind and solar because the government pays them to use it, and it buys them some good PR. To make that work beyond this limit of 15%, 20%, or perhaps 30%, that engineers and economists estimate the costs have to be so ridiculously low that they can over build their production capacity, build and maintain energy storage, pay for a "smart grid", and buy expensive natural gas turbine peak generation capacity, with enough left over to make a profit.

      Amazon and Google are examples of this buying expensive wind and solar to get some good PR. This is advertising for them. It's "greenwashing" their image. Their electricity supply still relies on coal, nuclear, and natural gas, as much as any one else. Unless we see some leap in technology, which is unlikely, then wind and solar will remain a small fraction of our energy supply.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    7. Re:Where's the nukes? by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but you're wrong. Flagrantly, blatantly wrong. I explained the reasons elsewhere, and am not going to reiterate just to bring somebody too lazy or stupid to inform themselves up to speed.

      Just one of the great, gaping holes in your "blame the gubmint for over-regulating" narrative is the inarguable fact that taxpayers are on the hook for almost the entire cost of cleanup in the event of a nuclear accident. That is a handout to the nuclear industry, pure and simple. There are many others.

      Please try to keep up.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    8. Re:Where's the nukes? by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, my friend, but you're shooting at the wrong target. Fossil fuel subsidies in 2015 (the last year they've got all the data assembled, as far as I know) were over $5 trillion world-wide. Total renewable subsidies were around $88 billion. Yes, that's a large number, but it's a tiny fraction of the amount governments hand over to fossil fuel giants. And fossil fuels are a mature industry. They should be standing on their own feet. You say renewables should be doing that, even though by any measure you care to name, solar, wind, and the rest are still emergent technology.

      So until we're willing to talk about ending all the fossil fuel subsidies, there should be no argument whatsoever about spending a few tax dollars to grow an investment in new technology.

      And yes, the grid as we know is on the way out. Not today or tomorrow, but within our lifetimes. One of the places my work takes me into spent a lot of money on installing a lot of solar panels about five years ago. The subsidy they got went straight out the door into the local economy, because they were assembled and installed by small local contractors. If strident conservative voices hadn't poisoned any chance of manufacturing subsidies, they'd have been built here too. But that boat has sailed. China jumped in with both feet and now owns solar. Anyway, the director of the place told me last week those panels have now paid for themselves and are generating a lot of free electricity. He tells me that when they do the books this year, the panels will appear as an asset. Because the place is a non-profit organization, it does a lot of work in the community either cheap or for free. The free energy they're getting translates (again) into a direct benefit for the community.

      The main thing fossil fuels contribute to the local community is bad air, yet we still hand that industry billions of free taxpayer dollars every year that go straight off shore.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    9. Re:Where's the nukes? by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Nothing you wrote contradicted anything I wrote. Sure, we might see some more investment in wind and smart grids but that cannot make wind become anything more than a small percentage of our energy supply.

      As for China "jumping in with both feet" into wind and solar that's not quite true. Sure, they'll probably install 2 GW of solar this year but they'll also install 5 GW of nuclear this year. China has 80 GW of nuclear power capacity right now and 8 GW of solar. For every GW of solar they are building 10 GW of nuclear.

      You want to see oil subsidies go away? Fine, so do I. I also want to see more nuclear power capacity get built. I will maintain that unless these "environmentalists" support nuclear power, so long as they fear nuclear more than CAGW, then I can't take them seriously.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  8. Re:The US "green energy" system is flawed. by fred6666 · · Score: 1

    So when Amazon or Google buy 1 GW of green power, that is 1 GW less that coal power plants are making in revenue.

    Only if they can't shift that electricity production towards others, less regarding, customers.
    Otherwise, they do not lose a dime in revenue. That was my original point. Currently there are way too much customers in the USA who don't care about green energy and would choose coal instead of solar even to save 1% on their bill.

  9. Politics by Dan+East · · Score: 1

    Even in the age of coal enthusiast President Donald Trump

    This is really getting tiresome. Trump doesn't give a flying flip about coal, or nuclear, or solar, or anything else (unless he has invested some money in one of them, which I haven't heard). Hillary was stupid enough to throw the coal miners under the bus during the election, so Trump used that to his advantage while campaigning to cozy up to them. I bet Trump wouldn't even know what a piece of coal looks like. Coal for power energy is a dead end - solar and natural gas are both cheaper and safer and are winning out and will continue to win out. Every frigging thing does not have to be about Trump or invoke his name in some way. Considering how much half of the population hates him, they sure like to talk about him at every opportunity they can.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
  10. Simpsons, err, Apple did it first... by mattack2 · · Score: 1

    Doesn't even mention Apple??

    200 MW of solar in Reno, 170 MW of solar in China, etc..

    https://www.computerworld.com/...

  11. Re:The US "green energy" system is flawed. by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

    Yes, its all just an accounting game. As long as the amount of renewable energy generated during the course of the year is as much as the total the companies claim is 'earmarked' to them, then there is no additional 'green' energy generated due to these arrangements. They make good PR for the companies though. In reality, they are using energy generated from coal and gas just like their neighbors.

    If I were in the office (or warehouse) next door, I would make the same claim since I'm getting power from the same sources. I would say my energy supply is just as green as theirs. And it would be true.

  12. Re:The US "green energy" system is flawed. by mspohr · · Score: 1

    If you RTFA (hard, I know) you will see that Google and Amazon are buying new renewable power from developers who are building for them so it doesn't displace other users of power.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  13. So small by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    Do I read the numbers correctly? We talk about 2 GWh per year, while US consumes 3,913,000 GWh from electrical energy, according to wikipedia.

    The renewable part is so small that I am still looking for a 1000 fold error somewhere in the units.

  14. Re:The US "green energy" system is flawed. by fred6666 · · Score: 1

    Maybe they'd be building them anyway.

  15. Buying Green Power is a corporate scam by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    Unless you are providing your own Tesla Wall or shutting down your operations when the wind stops blowing and the sun isn't shining, your "share" of Green Power cannot ever be more than, say, 20 percent of your total consumption. Or whatever other percentage of intermittent power can be placed on the Grid, without compromising its stability in the absence of grid-scale storage or some serious "demand management" in terms of customers using electricity when the intermittent sources are online.

    Certainly claiming 100% Renewable Power as one local grocery store does is a fiction. "Oh yeah, renewables only account for 5 percent of power production but I am paying for Green Power so my share comes out of that 5 percent."

    What if everyone signed up for Green Power? In the absence of grid-scale storage or management of customer loads, the theoretical limit to the amount of renewable power, on average, is much less than 100%.

    If Amazon or Google was able to regulate their demand to match the amount of renewable power generated, I would say they are on to something and doing something worthy of praise. In the absence of Google shutting down servers when the wind stops blowing, Google is just blowing hot air.

    1. Re: Buying Green Power is a corporate scam by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      It depends where you live. In Quebec it's something like 98% hydro.

  16. Hate has no home here by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    I see these "Hate has no home here" yard signs in a liberal/Progressive college town.

    If half the population hates Mr. Trump, that means this homeowner is signaling to people-in-the-know that he supports President Trump because he is against hate?

  17. Trump factor by tsa · · Score: 1

    I think Trump might even be a factor in the acceleration of the adoption of green energy. Many people who are older than 40 experience the change of the climate, and take it seriously. They cringe while hearing Trump's rambles about energy and the climate. They also realize that trusting a deranged carrot to do what it promised isn't very smart. Green energy is locally produced, by the owner of the equipment, and thus a much more reliable source than promised coal. Then there is the chance that the next president will reverse much of what Trump has done, resulting in extra costs for the company. Trump is a liability, not an asset for companies.

    --

    -- Cheers!

  18. Re:The US "green energy" system is flawed. by ranton · · Score: 1

    So when Amazon or Google buy 1 GW of green power, that is 1 GW less that coal power plants are making in revenue.

    Only if they can't shift that electricity production towards others, less regarding, customers.
    Otherwise, they do not lose a dime in revenue. That was my original point. Currently there are way too much customers in the USA who don't care about green energy and would choose coal instead of solar even to save 1% on their bill.

    You missed the part where US emissions are going down and coal plants are closing because they cannot shift their production towards other less regarding customers. You bring up a possible outcome that is worth investigating, but after even a few minutes of investigation you can easily find your scenario is not happening.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  19. Re:The US "green energy" system is flawed. by fred6666 · · Score: 1

    Renewable are becoming cheaper every day. And cheap oil and gas, with Obama's stricter regulations, made coal useless. That's why coal plants are shutting down. Not because customers don't want to buy electricity from coal. Most US customers will still buy whatever is the cheapest, so it doesn't matter if Amazon and Google wants to run 100% on renewable. As long as the demand for green electricity is below the current production, the effect is minimal.
    15% of the electricity is green in the US. What's the share of Google and Amazon combined? 0.1%?

  20. Hydro isn't green by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    Because salmon or because it is reliable?

    Wind chops up hawks and eagles, but it is unreliable so I guess it is OK then?

    1. Re:Hydro isn't green by fred6666 · · Score: 1

      who were you replying to?