6 Replies to “How not to go 100% renewable”

  1. it is impossible to run something as big as apple or google without fossil fuels they are delusional if they think so.

  2. There are lots of organizations that use that logical fallacy. The City of Calgary ;likes to claim that it runs the C-train on wind power. However, without a dedicated power line from the wind farms to the C-train terminal, it’s akin to the town of Astoria, Oregon claiming to only pull Kootenay River water from the Columbia.

  3. They claim to be buying green indulgences directly from the source, whether the source is even attached to the grid they are pulling from. I wonder if any of these sources are actually selling the same power to multiple suckers, ie generating 50MW and selling 150MW to a bunch of virtue signalling morons.

  4. It’s equivalent to them donating money to the Red Cross while claiming to be rescuing hurricane victims.
    The dishonesty of the unreliables could be eliminated if they had to bid on the basis of providing all the grid conditioning to the customers. You want to pay $0.30/KWH from the unreliables (including 60% conventional) or $0.08/KWH from 100% conventional reliables?

  5. Note the new semantics here, alternate facts and alternative logic; Orwell was absolutely correct in his predictions.When an Ont Minister prattles on about how they will achieve 20% or whatever magical figure from “renewables” sometime soon. A mere redefinition of nuclear as a “renewable” would have achieved this feat without spending any additional dollars. Today easily 85% of Supply is being generated by nuclear and hydro (IESO figures). Coining a new term “Greenables” and crowing about it endlessly could have saved Ontarians $Billions poured down the rat hole of Wind/Solar development. If others can play around with language, why not Ont’s Liberal regime?

Navigation