Quote:
Originally Posted by hulkrogan
YES IT IS!!!
Lets look at it this way:
Scenario 1: Al Gore covers his mansion in solar panels and takes himself off the grid. He uses 10 billion kwh but no one cares because they can see solar panels on his roof, so its okay.
Scenario 2: Al Gore pays someone else to throw a bunch of solar panels in a field that generate 10 billion kwh of electricity. He buys these 10 billion kwh for his mansion. People bitch and moan because he's a hippocrite.
Seriously, what is the difference???
|
Gore uses 10 billion kwh worth of electricty, and purchases that electricity from a retailer, paying a premium for electricity from a renewable resource.
All that is guaranteed is the retailer will purchase 10 billion kwh worth of electricity from a power producer that uses renewable resources (wind, solar, etc) and puts it in the electricty pool to be distributed. Weither or not Gore sees any of the "green" electrons is anyones guess.
If he used solar panels connected to his house, there is the guarantee that his electricity is coming directly from renewable source, and not going into a pool.
I guess if you wanted to be picky there is a difference. Its mainly semantics.
Is Gore using "green" electricity? Technically speaking, no. Theoretically, yes.
Is he guaranteeing that his portion of the electricity pool is being produced from a renewable resource, rather than a standard method? yes.
If he was off the grid and using solar panels, wind mill, water, etc only for powering his house, it would be yes to both questions.