3 ms·

> and buy fossil power in Seattle.

dialup_sounds 2y ago
This is offset by the amount of fossil power you replaced in Kansas by selling the clean power you purchased there. The net emissions are zero.
- blueflow 2y ago
  The "net emissions" are zero because "having 1 fossil plant running somewhere" is your baseline. You only move the location of that plant around.
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    If you buy solar credits from KC to use in Seattle, you've increased the solar generation in KC without affecting demand in KC. This will idle one plant's worth of fossil generation in KC. In Seattle, you're buying one plant's worth of additional power. In Seattle excess demand is generally met by buying Hydro from BC, but let's assume worst case and it spins up previously-idle fossil. So in KC you're +1 solar, -1 fossil. In Seattle you're +1 fossil. Net: +1 solar.
  - Arnt 2y ago
    Right — this only works because someone else wants to buy fossil power. If no one wanted to buy fossil power this would stop working. But if/when we get that far, there shouldn't any need for hacks like this.
  - dialup_sounds 2y ago
    No, there are two consumers, the baseline is two units of fossil energy. The clean energy you're paying for is still being used by someone in lieu of more fossil energy. It doesn't just disappear.
Arnt 2y ago
And sell elsewhere. The CO₂ doesn't stay in place very long, so it doesn't really make a difference when you move emissions from one place to another. If we had a world without wind it would be different, but we do have wind on this planet.
- blueflow 2y ago
  If its fossil power, the carbon from it got removed from the ground and inserted into the surface carbon cycle. Lacking any large-scale method to put it back into the ground, this is a irreversible process. The damage is done regardless of where the emissions happen. Shuffling the location of the emissions around does not help.
  - Arnt 2y ago
    It also does not hurt. The Guardian blames companies who use regenerative power, and who pay to have regenerative power generation expanded faster than would otherwise be possible. IMO that blaming hurts.

This is offset by the amount of fossil power you replaced in Kansas by selling the clean power you purchased there. The net emissions are zero.

blueflow 2y ago
The "net emissions" are zero because "having 1 fossil plant running somewhere" is your baseline. You only move the location of that plant around.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  If you buy solar credits from KC to use in Seattle, you've increased the solar generation in KC without affecting demand in KC. This will idle one plant's worth of fossil generation in KC. In Seattle, you're buying one plant's worth of additional power. In Seattle excess demand is generally met by buying Hydro from BC, but let's assume worst case and it spins up previously-idle fossil. So in KC you're +1 solar, -1 fossil. In Seattle you're +1 fossil. Net: +1 solar.
- Arnt 2y ago
  Right — this only works because someone else wants to buy fossil power. If no one wanted to buy fossil power this would stop working. But if/when we get that far, there shouldn't any need for hacks like this.
- dialup_sounds 2y ago
  No, there are two consumers, the baseline is two units of fossil energy. The clean energy you're paying for is still being used by someone in lieu of more fossil energy. It doesn't just disappear.

Arnt 2y ago

And sell elsewhere. The CO₂ doesn't stay in place very long, so it doesn't really make a difference when you move emissions from one place to another. If we had a world without wind it would be different, but we do have wind on this planet.

blueflow 2y ago
If its fossil power, the carbon from it got removed from the ground and inserted into the surface carbon cycle. Lacking any large-scale method to put it back into the ground, this is a irreversible process. The damage is done regardless of where the emissions happen. Shuffling the location of the emissions around does not help.
- Arnt 2y ago
  It also does not hurt. The Guardian blames companies who use regenerative power, and who pay to have regenerative power generation expanded faster than would otherwise be possible. IMO that blaming hurts.