Quote:
Originally Posted by Osmium Steele
Since when solar generated electricity not renewable energy?
(...)
But, isn't it incentive for Greece, and other countries, to build more solar plants? Isn't it a win for renewable energy investment?
Heck, if everybody paid them, eventually Greece could generate all power for the entire planet! No one would need to use gas, coal or oil to generate electricity. Atmospheric CO2 plummets. No more need for emissions caps. Utopia attained!
(Yes, the tongue is firmly planted in the cheek.)
|
You have not thought it through correctly, the plan they have, I mean. Greece DOES NOT deliver the electricty it produces by solar panels according to this plan, they only virtually sell it, but not in real. To be precise, it plans to deliver/export only 10% of the electricity it wants to produce with these panels. So electricty they produce - does not get distributed. It stays in Greece. The eneeds for enmergy elsewhere thus remain unaffected by this.
Now let'S have a simple, schemnatic example of what happens according to that plan.
There is let's say Holland. Holland produces electricity, and let'S assume by doing it it cannot cap the emissions it is allowed to reach. It exceeds the limits.
Now comes Greece and produces electricity with solar panels. Clean, green, nice. It sells an export of electicity to Holland. Holland pays for the electricity.
Money flows. But electricty flows NOT. The sale is virtual only. The electricity bought by Holland gets consumed in Greece.
That leaves Holland with some money less, and still with the need of electricity, becasue it gets jone from Greece which it has payed to virtually deliver, but not in the real world.
Hollanmd thus still prodcues electricty the way it did before it agreed to the deal with Greece. It still causes emissions by its own, and it still causes almost the same emissions it would have casued than before the deal. It vcasues these emissions, since it still must prioduce the electricty it needs - sine it does not get the electricity if has bought from Greece. Remember, the electricity stays in greece and gets consumed there.
But Holland is given by the EU permission to increase the total maximum limit on its emissions. So by giving the Greeks money for electricty Greece doe snot need to deliver and does not plan to deliver, Holland earns the right to cause the same emissions as before, but now legally, either overstepping the new limits by a smaller margin than before, of maybe it dfoes not overstep the limits at all anymore,s ince they have been in creased. But Holland still produces the same emissions than before!
So in what way is this business model, if one dares to call it this, a model for producing green energy? Notg less emissions get caused. There is no em ission rfeduction. There is no electricty delivered to Holland. There is no decline in demand.
And what does Greece do with the electricity it wants to additionally produce, but probably does not need? Where is the sudden increase in demand coming from? Do they suddenly run an additional TV in all households, all day long?
This is a faulty, even fraudulent business model from all beginning on. The Greeks get money, the Dutch get a rise in their emission limits, and the EU gets a formal exycuse to claim that their emission goals will be met (at the cost of having increased them), or missing them by just a smaller margin. environment-friendly electricity production has nothing to do with it.
Not to mention the technical problems and missing powergrid infrastructure to feed that electricity into the continental powergrid.
You see, there are no emissions being cut in this model anyhwere in Europe. That's why it is not any green at all. Emission caps even get increased through the backdoor!
Do you now understand why I was so irritated and did noit trust my eyes and askled whether I really undersxtood this correctly?