4 ms·
Quite interesting remark. However, I'm not saying the savings from producing more wind are not real. They are very real, because you avoided using other means o
by corradio 9y ago
Quite interesting remark.
However, I'm not saying the savings from producing more wind are not real. They are very real, because you avoided using other means of production, potentially fossil fuels. So that's good.
On the other hand, saying that you basically got your Macbook for free (saved all the money, i.e. ran exclusively on wind) can only work if you didn't spend anything else.
Saving 999$ but spending 200 more (i.e. also having coal) and not counting it because you somehow earned more money somewhere else (i.e. exported it) is not what I call proper bookkeeping.
- ricardobeat 9y agoNo "for free" in the analogy. You had $999 from wind work, $200 from coal work. You can totally say you bought that laptop on wind only.
- corradio 9y agoand that's exactly the point: we should focus on whether or not you got any money from coal, regardless of what you did with it, because that's what is driving emissions in the end.
- ricardobeat 9y agoIt is not possible to completely replace one with the other without a transition period, and until we solve the storage issue.