4 ms·
There are basically two numbers here: 1. Net usage after selling off excess energy 2. Net usage assuming there is no demand for excess when you have it (maybe
by joncalhoun 10y ago
There are basically two numbers here:
1. Net usage after selling off excess energy
2. Net usage assuming there is no demand for excess when you have it (maybe everyone on the grid has solar panels)
Achieving 100% in #1 is great and I applaud Google for it. If everyone did this we could drastically reduce overall usage of fossil fuels, but I believe the fear is that people won't know the distinction and will assume "if everyone does what Google does we will all be 100% renewable" and that isn't true.
- ChuckMcM 10y agoCan I test an assumption with you? Lets say that "everyone does it", and by that I mean literally everyone on the planet generates more renewable energy on some grid somewhere, than they use on the grids they are using. That is the definition of 100% renewable energy use is it not? You can't push power into a grid if nobody is using it, they don't work that way. So if the world is using 12.3 TW and 12.3TW is being generated by renewable sources, your done.
- matchagaucho 10y agoIf I'm generating 20% more solar energy than I need and resell the excess it to the grid, am I operating at 120% renewable energy? What about the consumers of my excess energy? Are they operating at 20% renewable and 80% fossil? If my 20% in excess is counted towards my total renewable energy consumption, and other consumers also claim that 20% towards their renewable consumption, then we're just double counting. No?