4 ms·

> I'm guessing from your argument that you do not. Frankly I don't think anyone should. It's mental gymnastics to be able to say you aren't using dirty energy

by hueving 10y ago

> I'm guessing from your argument that you do not. Frankly I don't think anyone should. It's mental gymnastics to be able to say you aren't using dirty energy when you really are. Let me illustrate with an example of why you can't get by with 'offsets'. Let's say Arizona is running on 80 GW natural gas and 20 GW solar. Google wants to build in Virginia, which relies heavily on coal. So they bring online a 2 GW datacenter in Virginia which is powered by a 2 GW increase in coal burning. They "offset" it by building 2 GW of solar in Arizona, which scales back natural gas by 2 GW. The result of their 'clean offset' has been the conversion of 2 GW natural gas to 2 GW of coal, which is significantly worse for the environment.

ChuckMcM 10y ago
I see what you're saying, but to me trying to phrase it in that way seems more like mental gymnastics than actual double entry accounting in watts. Would it help if the renewable source had to be connected to the same grid-tie (there are 4 I think in the US) ? Then you're putting renewable energy into the same grid you are pulling it out of. What if your solar plant in Arizona use the Fischer–Tropsch to make fuel, then you drove it in a tanker across the country and poured it into generators in Virginia? The way I see it is that watts are watts (just like dollars are dollars) so if the total watts you burn are offset by renewable watts you have put in, then you are ahead. If everyone does that then by definition the entire grid is running on renewable energy.
- hueving 10y ago
  >Then you're putting renewable energy into the same grid you are pulling it out of. Right, but they aren't connected to the same grid. Google has datacenters all over the world, connected to all sorts of different grids with different source compositions. >What if your solar plant in Arizona use the Fischer–Tropsch to make fuel, then you drove it in a tanker across the country and poured it into generators in Virginia? Sure, but you have to account for the emissions from that whole process as well (emissions of solar + emissions of generating the fuel + emissions of transportation + emissions of burning the fuel). >The way I see it is that watts are watts (just like dollars are dollars) Nope, a watt generated on one grid does not spend on another because they're not all interconnected. Until we solve the energy storage problem, the problem is exacerbated further by continually expanding solar installations in one particular region of the US that will generate more than the consumption for part of the day.
  - ChuckMcM 10y ago
    One small point I realized reading your comment here is that you mentioned emissions. The original article is about "renewable" energy, not "carbon footprint neutral" energy. If you had a wood fired power plant, it would be 'renewable' energy, but it would not be 'carbon neutral'. I think it is important to distinguish between the two and both are important.
    - dagss 10y ago
      What do you mean? A wood fired power plant totally IS carbon neutral, as long as the logging is done sustainably (i.e. "renewable"). The trees suck up exactly as much CO2 when they grow up as they emit when burned. I guess nuclear power is non-renewable but carbon neutral. Cannot think of anything that is not carbon neutral but renewable...wouldn't that require creating CO2 matter from nothing?
      - ChuckMcM 10y ago
        Actually nuclear power can be used to make breeder reactors, which uses the neutron flux from a critical reactor to create more fuel, in theory giving them a lifetime that is at least as long as the supply of heavy elements holds out, but if you want to be seriously pedantic then Solar isn't exactly renewable since the Sun has a limited amount of hydrogen to burn and once it runs out it will be very hard on our planet, catastrophically so by all estimations.
    - hueving 10y ago
      Ok, if we throw out emissions and just worry about renewable, then the trucks traveling across the country have to also run on the fuel generated by the solar panels for your watts to be fungible across grids.
      - ChuckMcM 10y ago
        Well there is no reason the trucks couldn't, it would just affect the overall efficiency (the amount of solar power in to the amount of electricity out).

by hueving 10y ago

ChuckMcM 10y ago

I see what you're saying, but to me trying to phrase it in that way seems more like mental gymnastics than actual double entry accounting in watts. Would it help if the renewable source had to be connected to the same grid-tie (there are 4 I think in the US) ? Then you're putting renewable energy into the same grid you are pulling it out of. What if your solar plant in Arizona use the Fischer–Tropsch to make fuel, then you drove it in a tanker across the country and poured it into generators in Virginia? The way I see it is that watts are watts (just like dollars are dollars) so if the total watts you burn are offset by renewable watts you have put in, then you are ahead. If everyone does that then by definition the entire grid is running on renewable energy.

hueving 10y ago
>Then you're putting renewable energy into the same grid you are pulling it out of. Right, but they aren't connected to the same grid. Google has datacenters all over the world, connected to all sorts of different grids with different source compositions. >What if your solar plant in Arizona use the Fischer–Tropsch to make fuel, then you drove it in a tanker across the country and poured it into generators in Virginia? Sure, but you have to account for the emissions from that whole process as well (emissions of solar + emissions of generating the fuel + emissions of transportation + emissions of burning the fuel). >The way I see it is that watts are watts (just like dollars are dollars) Nope, a watt generated on one grid does not spend on another because they're not all interconnected. Until we solve the energy storage problem, the problem is exacerbated further by continually expanding solar installations in one particular region of the US that will generate more than the consumption for part of the day.
- ChuckMcM 10y ago
  One small point I realized reading your comment here is that you mentioned emissions. The original article is about "renewable" energy, not "carbon footprint neutral" energy. If you had a wood fired power plant, it would be 'renewable' energy, but it would not be 'carbon neutral'. I think it is important to distinguish between the two and both are important.
  - dagss 10y ago
    What do you mean? A wood fired power plant totally IS carbon neutral, as long as the logging is done sustainably (i.e. "renewable"). The trees suck up exactly as much CO2 when they grow up as they emit when burned. I guess nuclear power is non-renewable but carbon neutral. Cannot think of anything that is not carbon neutral but renewable...wouldn't that require creating CO2 matter from nothing?
    - ChuckMcM 10y ago
      Actually nuclear power can be used to make breeder reactors, which uses the neutron flux from a critical reactor to create more fuel, in theory giving them a lifetime that is at least as long as the supply of heavy elements holds out, but if you want to be seriously pedantic then Solar isn't exactly renewable since the Sun has a limited amount of hydrogen to burn and once it runs out it will be very hard on our planet, catastrophically so by all estimations.
  - hueving 10y ago
    Ok, if we throw out emissions and just worry about renewable, then the trucks traveling across the country have to also run on the fuel generated by the solar panels for your watts to be fungible across grids.
    - ChuckMcM 10y ago
      Well there is no reason the trucks couldn't, it would just affect the overall efficiency (the amount of solar power in to the amount of electricity out).