Chicago powering its municipal buildings with renewable energy NOT!

[Analog Kid]

A little while ago I heard a report on NPR (National Public Radio in the US, one of the most incredibly biased outlets I've ever had the misfortune to listen to). It told us that the city of Chicago, in a bold move, was now going to power (or was powering) all of its municipal gov't. buildings with clean, green renewable energy:

More cities are looking to green projects to fight climate change. Chicago is now powering all its municipal buildings with 100% renewable energy and the city helped finance a major solar farm.

What a stinking pile of horseshit!

Never mind the good intentions of the city in doing this, and never mind their plan, which was to buy power from a supplier who had a good deal of renewable energy in their portfolio.

It seems that people actually believe this, that somehow the electricity that is supplying these buildings comes from 100% renewable sources (solar, wind, hydro).

This, or course, is impossible. Because, as I hardly have to point out to most people reading this here on this forum, it's not as if they ran alternate sets of power cables to these buildings. The buildings are still receiving their power from ComEd, the regional power company.

According to this page, here's the energy mix that all ComEd electrical customers receive:

As of 2023, Illinois generates 54.89% of electricity from nuclear power, 31.58% from fossil fuels (comprising of coal, natural gas, petroleum, and other gases), and 13.53% from renewables (comprising of wind, solar, hydropower, and biomass).

So whoop-te-do, they're using about 14% renewables to generate electricity. A Good Thing, to be sure. But far from 100%, which is the impression that this brain-dead piece of so-called "reporting" leaves.

So the city may now be paying for 100% renewable electricity through its supplier, but it certainly isn't actually receiving that power through the outlets in its buildings.

I swear, if the US becomes any more technologically ignorant, we richly deserve to be overrun by the likes of China, Russia and India.

[Analog Kid]

Of course, buried down in about the 11th "graf" of the story is the real explanation:

Of course, the city is still connected to the regional grid, which in northern Illinois, relies heavily on nuclear power. Still, Chicago will effectively be paying for the renewable energy equivalent to what it uses every day.

(italics mine)

100% renewable energy my ass ...

[Haenk]

I'm not sure if you are aware of interconnects in the electrical grid?
I.e. while they might receive no renewable energy at all; company X might, while paying for coal power. At the same time, both the coal plant and the solar plant are connected to the grid and pumping power into the grid.
So the term "powering" might be a bit misleading, "empowering" might be suited better, as they are paying for the generation of renewable energy. In the greater scheme of things, it is eventually pointless to be nitpicky about who is the actual provider and user of grid resources.

[tszaboo]

It's not like that. The DSO needs to have a certificate, that the power was coming from renewable sources. This is usually comes for each unit of power, which is 1MWh. If the city buys 10GWh per year, then that needs to come from renewable sources and the same 10GWh cannot be sold to other customers. If more and more customers do this, they need to build new power plants.
It also creates jobs, that are not useless time wasters sitting at a government desk creating burocracy.

[Analog Kid]

I'm not sure if you are aware of interconnects in the electrical grid?
I.e. while they might receive no renewable energy at all; company X might, while paying for coal power. At the same time, both the coal plant and the solar plant are connected to the grid and pumping power into the grid.
So the term "powering" might be a bit misleading, "empowering" might be suited better, as they are paying for the generation of renewable energy. In the greater scheme of things, it is eventually pointless to be nitpicky about who is the actual provider and user of grid resources.

No.

The article leaves the definite impression that the municipal buildings in Chicago are going to be powered 100% by electricity from renewable sources. Not "empowered" but actually powered, i.e. the electrons come from solar, wind or hydro.

This is clearly impossible with the current infrastructure, where those buildings, indeed the entire city, channels power from the sources I described above (nuclear, fossil fuel and renewables). It's not as if they can divert the "green" electricity alone to their buildings; everyone receives the same mix of power through the transmission lines, transformers, etc. It's just that they are paying for a different mix.

[Sorama]

It’s probably related to the energy contract that stipulates it’s energy is 100% green.
That does not mean that the delivered energy itself is green, but that they bought the same amount of certificates for green power.

It’s all about trading certificates.

[Analog Kid]

Yes, of course that's it. I once signed up for such a deal, where I paid a 3rd party instead of the local power company for electricity, and was assured that the electricity I paid for was a certain percentage (not 100%) "green".

It didn't affect in the least the power I was actually receiving at my house, at best only at the margins (the idea was to move the needle a little bit toward the renewables side of the equation). I knew that when I signed up.

The dunderheads at NPR, and possibly their listeners, seem to actually believe that the City of Chicago is actually receiving 100% renewable electricity at their buildings.

[Sorama]

Well, not everybody is as smart as we are :-)

[RJSV]

   Its as easy (can be) as shooting fish in a barrel:
   I'm not employing any super-genious to analyze secret texts....you get your 'data' from their own mouths.  The city government there in Detroit will brag due to a technicality, that allows enough 'wiggle space', to make disingenuous claims.   Claims that are close enough (to an actual truth) by the buying of Green 'credits' to offset non-green power use (or call that 'UnGreen'.)
"Close enough..." they will declare, and then continue to make claims as if they are DIRECTLY acting green.

   See what I mean ?   This shit, they say, or spew, has just enough, to, vainly, hide behind.  But meanwhile any 8 th grade kid could track these things....just by way of LISTENING.
Not that hard, really, to track the slime.


....I'm remembering, that DETROIT has had some, err,  rather turbulent public meetings, I thing related to the public schools.
The speakers were not happy with the Mayor there.   (From the news, approx. Jan.8 .thanks.

[johnk0gcj@gmail.com]

I am shocked,  shocked I say. I was led to believe that those electrons
were traceable to their source, maybe dyed appropriate colors. Especially the
ones from renewable sources, like, colored green, so those socially responsible
among us would know that our efforts were being useful.

[RJSV]

   One argument I see (here),  basically is annoyed that critics are 'nitpicking' by applying some obvious legitimate language...
Oh, yeah ? Like what:  by expecting statements to be true,  as in;
   'Credits were purchased, so that, in buying 'SOME' percentage, they can and should claim that it's for 100 % green generated,...not some 14 % as kinda, sorta, might be same thing.

[tooki]

A little while ago I heard a report on NPR (National Public Radio in the US, one of the most incredibly biased outlets I've ever had the misfortune to listen to). It told us that the city of Chicago, in a bold move, was now going to power (or was powering) all of its municipal gov't. buildings with clean, green renewable energy:

More cities are looking to green projects to fight climate change. Chicago is now powering all its municipal buildings with 100% renewable energy and the city helped finance a major solar farm.

What a stinking pile of horseshit!

Never mind the good intentions of the city in doing this, and never mind their plan, which was to buy power from a supplier who had a good deal of renewable energy in their portfolio.

It seems that people actually believe this, that somehow the electricity that is supplying these buildings comes from 100% renewable sources (solar, wind, hydro).

This, or course, is impossible. Because, as I hardly have to point out to most people reading this here on this forum, it's not as if they ran alternate sets of power cables to these buildings. The buildings are still receiving their power from ComEd, the regional power company.

According to this page, here's the energy mix that all ComEd electrical customers receive:

As of 2023, Illinois generates 54.89% of electricity from nuclear power, 31.58% from fossil fuels (comprising of coal, natural gas, petroleum, and other gases), and 13.53% from renewables (comprising of wind, solar, hydropower, and biomass).

So whoop-te-do, they're using about 14% renewables to generate electricity. A Good Thing, to be sure. But far from 100%, which is the impression that this brain-dead piece of so-called "reporting" leaves.

So the city may now be paying for 100% renewable electricity through its supplier, but it certainly isn't actually receiving that power through the outlets in its buildings.

I swear, if the US becomes any more technologically ignorant, we richly deserve to be overrun by the likes of China, Russia and India.

You do realize that the energy in the grid is 100% fungible, and that this is how all utilities sell green power? (I’m not aware of any that run parallel grids for different power sources.) The only way to actually guarantee your power came directly and exclusively from a particular source is to generate it on-site.

So basically you’re whining about Chicago doing things (and NPR accurately reporting about it) exactly the way the whole world does it.

[RJSV]

   Yes, partial 'whining' as I've now understood the point, about the electricity flow itself has no identification as to what source.
   OK but that then kills the whole dynamic, is flawed because 'credits' have no credible,  traceable foundation.  So it all gets thrown out, as not traceable by any official accountant or project management.

   The claim itself, that credits are what they say they are,  isn't practical for use...could as well been a claim that originated down in the 'mail room' (so to speak).

   In layperson's terms, the whole packaging and wording just STINKS.  I mean,  some city resident with, perhaps, high school and college degrees, to accept without much scrutiny the claims made by official (City of Detroit) acts.
They might have thought:
   "Good,  we need those 100 percent green deals.  Plus,  nevermind the green stuff,  we get private sector jobs, out of the deal, and 'cut' emissions too.  (Yeah,  that's right, it's an emissions related 'inaccuracy' as well.)

   Weasel words, these are called.
OR, 'fraud' ?

[Analog Kid]

You do realize that the energy in the grid is 100% fungible, and that this is how all utilities sell green power? (I’m not aware of any that run parallel grids for different power sources.) The only way to actually guarantee your power came directly and exclusively from a particular source is to generate it on-site.

So basically you’re whining about Chicago doing things (and NPR accurately reporting about it) exactly the way the whole world does it.

Yes, of course I realize that the practice of fudging percentages of "green" electricity is practiced worldwide.
And I think almost all of us here, on this board, as well as some other folks out there, understand this as well.

But what gets my ire is how this particular news report is making a patently false claim, an easily disproven one, that the City of Chicago is actually receiving 100% renewable electricity. This is several steps beyond fudging and takes us well into the realm of outright falsehood and, basically, lying.

[SiliconWizard]

Damn, politicians are lying. What a shock.

[RJSV]

   Well, Analog Kid, I can see a portion of the other arguments against yours, but for the most part I agree with your assessment.  It just gets messy, in real world considerations:
   1.). Maybe the nuclear figure is getting mixed up / mixed in, with it being labeled or termed as a 'renewable' ?

   2.). Cityhood operators, these days, DON'T FOLLOW usual customary modes, of professionalism, honesty (yeah, really), and even outside, just of common sense culture, internally.
   One example, (petty),  a person had 'goods' to sell, personally, some low cost jewelry in Christmas season.  That was a clerk in the building permits dept.
A petty example, but in a more typical 'traditional' planning dept. office that sort of personal business wouldn't be happening.
(Besides being slightly 'off putting' or intimidating.)

   Could these sorts of 'credits' purchased be applied to CRIME ?
Say, make a payment to 'offset' a cold-blooded murder ?   That silly example helps to illustrate the indefinite qualities of evaluating such.
   I'm having difficulty in describing payments as being for PRODUCTS, or SERVICES ?
Hush money, to a Homicide Dept. ?
(Probably, you'd have to specify which murder you are re-imbursung funds for.

[Analog Kid]

Damn, politicians are lying. What a shock.

In this case, the media is doing the lying.

[TimFox]

Media are plural.

[Analog Kid]

And pi are squared.

[TimFox]

 Pi are round; cornbread are square.

[tooki]

You do realize that the energy in the grid is 100% fungible, and that this is how all utilities sell green power? (I’m not aware of any that run parallel grids for different power sources.) The only way to actually guarantee your power came directly and exclusively from a particular source is to generate it on-site.

So basically you’re whining about Chicago doing things (and NPR accurately reporting about it) exactly the way the whole world does it.

Yes, of course I realize that the practice of fudging percentages of "green" electricity is practiced worldwide.
And I think almost all of us here, on this board, as well as some other folks out there, understand this as well.

But what gets my ire is how this particular news report is making a patently false claim, an easily disproven one, that the City of Chicago is actually receiving 100% renewable electricity. This is several steps beyond fudging and takes us well into the realm of outright falsehood and, basically, lying.

I don’t agree that any lying or misleading is happening here whatsoever.

Electricity isn’t a physical mass. It’s the flow of charge, and as we know, despite the fact that the charge moves at ~speed of light, electrons themselves move very slowly — and since this is AC, they just move back and forth. So the energy we pay for is not the actual electrons originally put into motion at the power plant. That’s true for every kind of power plant.

It’s not like, for example, a chemical that can be sourced from multiple processes, and despite being chemically indistinguishable, one might have an objection to one because it uses animal products or conflict minerals in its production, while the other does not.

Your objection is like being concerned that your bank doesn’t return to you the exact banknotes you deposited when you then make a withdrawal. The bank doesn’t do that. The money goes in a pool, and you are entitled to a portion of that pool.

So what matters is how the electricity gets produced. When you buy 100% renewable power, you’re paying for the production, and the right to extract an equivalent amount from the grid.

[Analog Kid]

Media are plural.

Ackshooly, "media" can be treated as either singular or plural, depending on the context:

https://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/media_singular_or_plural.htm

This is now common usage. The old strict "media = plural" rule no longer applies. (At least to us non-academicians out here.)

[Analog Kid]

So what matters is how the electricity gets produced. When you buy 100% renewable power, you’re paying for the production, and the right to extract an equivalent amount from the grid.

Yes, yes, yes; no argument.
We get it; electricity is fungible.
But what you cannot and should not say is that "my buildings are being powered by 100% renewable energy", because that is demonstrably false. Which is what that article outright stated, not just implied.

[The Soulman]

So what matters is how the electricity gets produced. When you buy 100% renewable power, you’re paying for the production, and the right to extract an equivalent amount from the grid.

Yes, yes, yes; no argument.
We get it; electricity is fungible.
But what you cannot and should not say is that "my buildings are being powered by 100% renewable energy", because that is demonstrably false. Which is what that article outright stated, not just implied.

Yes, they should have a separate grid and outlets for different the different power sources, example below is regular power versus designer power.

[RJSV]

   Oh, whew, I didn't think, at first, that is a Power Plug...close call with that video image.

  But, (back to topic), it's all physic and electronic science argument,  but that's not appropriate, for general population:
   "...You see, electrons move very slowly..."

You'd be talking over their head, so to speak.

   I would think, that use of the term 'INDISTINGUISHABLE' might be a clue, that you cannot, uh, distinguish.  Not without some made up verification steps.
   You have to verify, that every watt goes to where they say it goes, firstly.  Then, you need to verify the generators aren't 'double-dipping' by claiming or selling to some extra party.
In other words, falsifying records, in order to sell the same green 'wattage' to two places.

   To do that, you would need to look for a 'lier' to back up your sales records.  Shouldn't be too difficult.

[vk6zgo]

Maybe the current lot of "uneducated" plebs are more lacking in comonsense than those of earlier generations.

The idea of paying more for "green" power has been around for years, & "Blind Freddie" could see that there were no separate power feeds appearing at the entrance to buildings.
It was quite understandable that you were paying for that component of the power generated by renewables, but not getting that very component.

Other things were equally obvious:-

In the Australian States which privatised their power generation, grid, local distribution & sales, you would buy your electricity from one company, but it could have been produced by any other company.

In the same way, Telstra was the main POTS provider, but you could sign up with other companies which used the same infrastructure with their sole contribution being to have negotiated an advantageous deal with Telstra.

Western Australia had one Oil Refinery, owned by BP, which supplied all the brands of fuel.
The only difference between brands was whatever type of "Booleum or Phooleum" they added to the tanks.

Way back in the day, we could buy an "Austin Lancer" or a "Morris Major' both assembled on the same line at BMC Australia.

People understood these things & were not deceived, even though the companies might have thought so.

[RJSV]

   I started thinking, no kidding, about what things would evolve, if we just move on, while critics here make claims.  Maybe we need cumulative arguments, tempered with experience.   OMG. Now we have to wait till 2040 !

[Analog Kid]

   I started thinking, no kidding, about what things would evolve, if we just move on, while critics here make claims.  Maybe we need cumulative arguments, tempered with experience.   OMG. Now we have to wait till 2040 !

OK, I'm going to dissect what you wrote to see if I can actually extract any meaningful information from it:

I started thinking, no kidding, about what things would evolve, if we just move on, while critics here make claims.

"What things would evolve"? Yes; what things would evolve? And what does that mean, "if we just move on, while critics here make claims"? What critics? what claims?

Maybe we need cumulative arguments, tempered with experience.

"Cumlative arguments"? ? ? ? ? And how would they be "tempered with experience"?

And why would we have to wait until 2040?

I swear, Rick: you should probably either learn to write more clearly, or better yet learn to edit your stream-of-consciousness word salads before typing them into a reply window here--or maybe you should dial back the hallucinogenic drugs.

[RJSV]

   Concept being,  that some 'critics' here in this topic are likely NEVER going to see and agree.
So, if someone drives home the point, that you cannot 'trace' some green power, from source to user, (municipal building, in this thread), then the critic, or a couple of naysayers, will immediately deny that it's still valid and traceable.  One person even argued that 'Things are always done that way,  essentially ignoring your very solid point.

   I'm just saying, that's natural, that even great arguments can be dismissed...even by a "Sooo what ?". type of response.  So, if you (we) just move on,  let that one or two people disagree if they want.
   But, somewhere in the future, those naysayers get discounted...or at least one would hope.  I just don't wish to wait, for the truth to catch up, by 2040.
  By truth I mean that science applies, not someone stubbornly declaring the NPR reporting is the way it's always done, and you're crazy.  Some folks will never give in on an argument like this one on 'green' politics.

[Analog Kid]

OK, that's better.

[TimFox]

Media are plural.

Ackshooly, "media" can be treated as either singular or plural, depending on the context:

https://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/media_singular_or_plural.htm

This is now common usage. The old strict "media = plural" rule no longer applies. (At least to us non-academicians out here.)

Common usage often includes vulgar errors.
The New York Times is a medium.
One can consider print newspapers as a medium.
When you include other formats (TV, cable news, social media, etc.), you have “media”, obviously plural.
In “common usage”, there is no clear distinction between force, energy, power, etc.  I stay away from that confusion.

[Analog Kid]

I eschew the supercilious, overly-prescriptive strictures regarding the usage of non-technical terms like "media" and "data".

I treat "data" as a singular, collective noun.
It's like "water": we don't say "the water are warm", referring to individual molecules or clumps of water: we say "the water is warm", as we're referring to a basin, a tub, a koi pond, a lake or a sea full of water, not individual molecules or drops of water.

Same thing with data. To me, "the data are convincing" is overly pedantic (and more and more English speakers agree with me here). Data is a collection like water, a singular entity, so I say "the data is clear".

In “common usage”, there is no clear distinction between force, energy, power, etc.  I stay away from that confusion.

That's a horse of a different color, where more precision is needed, so you're on the correct side there.

[TimFox]

“Datum” is a real word, obviously singular.
Do you say “datums” for three of them?  I don’t.  Spellcheck tried to stop me from that silly word.
In the Psalms, we read “By the waters of Babylon….”, but we drink “water”.  I grew up near the headwaters of the Mississippi River.
The evolution of language seems to lose distinctions, so we need to use more words.  I resist that trend.

[Haenk]

you should dial back the hallucinogenic drugs.

This is getting personal, but I find most of the stuff he writes imconprehensable. So, I'm no native speaker and there might be a meaning behind that string of words, but even reading the posts twice or thrice (well, I *did* try at least) I usually have no idea, what he is talking about.
I - for the greater good - assume this is a medical condition and accept it. And hopefully has nothing to do with drug abuse.

[tooki]

So what matters is how the electricity gets produced. When you buy 100% renewable power, you’re paying for the production, and the right to extract an equivalent amount from the grid.

Yes, yes, yes; no argument.
We get it; electricity is fungible.
But what you cannot and should not say is that "my buildings are being powered by 100% renewable energy", because that is demonstrably false. Which is what that article outright stated, not just implied.

Let’s again use the analogy of money:

If you deposit $1000 cash in the bank, and then later withdraw $1000 cash, by your logic it’s no longer your money, because the banknotes you get on withdrawal aren’t the same ones you put in.

In the power grid, you have multiple power sources, and tons of consumers. So as I said, when you choose to buy renewable only, it means you’re paying for power generated by the renewable sources. It’s dumped into the grid, and you extract an equivalent amount.

Or am I completely misunderstanding the nature of your objection?

[Haenk]

“Datum” is a real word, obviously singular.
Do you say “datums” for three of them?  I don’t. 

And rightfully so. The correct plural is "dati". However I can hardly remember anyone ever using it. (Probably the last time was about 30 years ago by my uncle, history teacher and an IQ beyond believe. By far the smartest person I have ever met, and I have several PhDs in my closer family.)

[coppice]

So what matters is how the electricity gets produced. When you buy 100% renewable power, you’re paying for the production, and the right to extract an equivalent amount from the grid.

Yes, yes, yes; no argument.
We get it; electricity is fungible.
But what you cannot and should not say is that "my buildings are being powered by 100% renewable energy", because that is demonstrably false. Which is what that article outright stated, not just implied.

Let’s again use the analogy of money:

If you deposit $1000 cash in the bank, and then later withdraw $1000 cash, by your logic it’s no longer your money, because the banknotes you get on withdrawal aren’t the same ones you put in.

In the power grid, you have multiple power sources, and tons of consumers. So as I said, when you choose to buy renewable only, it means you’re paying for power generated by the renewable sources. It’s dumped into the grid, and you extract an equivalent amount.

Or am I completely misunderstanding the nature of your objection?

If people are on a tariff that shuts off their power when the output of the renewable sources drops below the current grid demand, then I will accept they are effectively on 100% renewable energy. If they continue to get power when those sources are inadequate the claim is bogus.

[TimFox]

“Datum” is a real word, obviously singular.
Do you say “datums” for three of them?  I don’t. 

And rightfully so. The correct plural is "dati". However I can hardly remember anyone ever using it. (Probably the last time was about 30 years ago by my uncle, history teacher and an IQ beyond believe. By far the smartest person I have ever met, and I have several PhDs in my closer family.)

I am not familiar with “dati”, but it seems to be used in Italian.
Like Shakespeare, I know little Latin and less Greek.

[Analog Kid]

So what matters is how the electricity gets produced. When you buy 100% renewable power, you’re paying for the production, and the right to extract an equivalent amount from the grid.

Yes, yes, yes; no argument.
We get it; electricity is fungible.
But what you cannot and should not say is that "my buildings are being powered by 100% renewable energy", because that is demonstrably false. Which is what that article outright stated, not just implied.

Let’s again use the analogy of money:

If you deposit $1000 cash in the bank, and then later withdraw $1000 cash, by your logic it’s no longer your money, because the banknotes you get on withdrawal aren’t the same ones you put in.

In the power grid, you have multiple power sources, and tons of consumers. So as I said, when you choose to buy renewable only, it means you’re paying for power generated by the renewable sources. It’s dumped into the grid, and you extract an equivalent amount.

Or am I completely misunderstanding the nature of your objection?

Yes, I'm sorry to say that you are.
You have correctly described the nature of fungible things, like money and electricity. No argument there.
And you've correctly described how some people pay for "green" electricity, even though not all of the power that they actually receive comes from those "green" sources. Again, no argument.

The thing that pisses me off is the article I linked to and described waaaay at the top of that thread.
That article attempts to sway readers to the proposition that the City of Chicago is actually receiving and using nothing but "green" energy in its municipal buildings because they've made such a payment arrangement with a third-party electrical supplier.

This is obviously, demonstrably, provably false, but many (most?) of the readers/listeners of that article will come away convinced that "yes, the City of Chicago is actually powering its buildings 100% with electricity from renewable sources". In other words, that all of the electricity that these buildings receive comes only from renewable sources: none from natural gas, coal or nuclear (which is not considered a renewable).

Do you see what I'm getting at here? It's not all that complicated.

[RJSV]

   I don't know why sometimes, but find myself in agreement with Analog Kid a lot.
As to singular / plural correctness, maybe 'medium' was used, in 1596.
   Modern use has, like Analog Kid said, both uses, singular or plural:

   Plural: "The old school disk drives have interchangeable 'media' ".

   Singular:  "Carefull with that...you don't want to damage that media, inside that unit."
Actually this one might be indefinite as to being either...?

[RJSV]

...and as to the conversation, 'I can hear you guys, here, (talking about me, (lol).
   Better response is:
   'Are you been taking hallucinogens ?...
And,  can you get me some !'.

(No, just kidding about taking hallucinogens, not a safe way to go.  To start, there isn't any trustworthy source, for safely avoiding fentanyl for example.   Most of the 'hard' drugs have no safe use, but cocaine is or was used in surgical settings, monitored by doctor.

Eccentric 'wierdo' syndrome is far, far distant from deadly substances.

[Analog Kid]

'Are you been taking hallucinogens ?...'

Heh; sounds like "all your base are belong to us".

[vk6zgo]

So what matters is how the electricity gets produced. When you buy 100% renewable power, you’re paying for the production, and the right to extract an equivalent amount from the grid.

Yes, yes, yes; no argument.
We get it; electricity is fungible.
But what you cannot and should not say is that "my buildings are being powered by 100% renewable energy", because that is demonstrably false. Which is what that article outright stated, not just implied.

Let’s again use the analogy of money:

If you deposit $1000 cash in the bank, and then later withdraw $1000 cash, by your logic it’s no longer your money, because the banknotes you get on withdrawal aren’t the same ones you put in.

In the power grid, you have multiple power sources, and tons of consumers. So as I said, when you choose to buy renewable only, it means you’re paying for power generated by the renewable sources. It’s dumped into the grid, and you extract an equivalent amount.

Or am I completely misunderstanding the nature of your objection?

Yes, I'm sorry to say that you are.
You have correctly described the nature of fungible things, like money and electricity. No argument there.
And you've correctly described how some people pay for "green" electricity, even though not all of the power that they actually receive comes from those "green" sources. Again, no argument.

The thing that pisses me off is the article I linked to and described waaaay at the top of that thread.
That article attempts to sway readers to the proposition that the City of Chicago is actually receiving and using nothing but "green" energy in its municipal buildings because they've made such a payment arrangement with a third-party electrical supplier.

This is obviously, demonstrably, provably false, but many (most?) of the readers/listeners of that article will come away convinced that "yes, the City of Chicago is actually powering its buildings 100% with electricity from renewable sources". In other words, that all of the electricity that these buildings receive comes only from renewable sources: none from natural gas, coal or nuclear (which is not considered a renewable).

Do you see what I'm getting at here? It's not all that complicated.

No, very few readers/listeners will go away with that impression, because they have learnt over time that replacing one commodity for another identical one (except sourced from somewhere else) doesn't affect their payment going to the source they specified.
It is indeed not complicated, to the extent that most people "from off the street" would know how it works.

[Analog Kid]

No, very few readers/listeners will go away with that impression, because they have learnt over time that replacing one commodity for another identical one (except sourced from somewhere else) doesn't affect their payment going to the source they specified.
It is indeed not complicated, to the extent that most people "from off the street" would know how it works.

Would they really?
No way for me to really know, but you seem to have more faith in the intuition of the great unwashed masses than I do.
My belief©® is that most of the NPR listeners (of the left-ish persuasion) will take that article at face value and think that Chitown is really only receiving electrons that originate from solar panels or windmills.

[vk6zgo]

No, very few readers/listeners will go away with that impression, because they have learnt over time that replacing one commodity for another identical one (except sourced from somewhere else) doesn't affect their payment going to the source they specified.
It is indeed not complicated, to the extent that most people "from off the street" would know how it works.

Would they really?
No way for me to really know, but you seem to have more faith in the intuition of the great unwashed masses than I do.
My belief©® is that most of the NPR listeners (of the left-ish persuasion) will take that article at face value and think that Chitown is really only receiving electrons that originate from solar panels or windmills.

Having been a member of "the great unwashed" for 8 decades, plus, I have found that most people can understand nuances quite well & are not quite as literal minded as your goodself.

[Analog Kid]

Having been a member of "the great unwashed" for 8 decades, plus, I have found that most people can understand nuances quite well & are not quite as literal minded as your goodself.

OK. I'll just conclude that your guess is as good as mine.
(And you have a whole decade on me.)

[RJSV]

   Can't resist the temptation, to respectfully engage:
   Actually, the unwashed masses thing is even worse, as one 'uneducated' and under-employed might say:
   What, (the hell),  is this 'unrecognized gains' and 'Local Fiduciary' thingy that this guy is emitting, from the mouth ?
They would say, also,  "This guy here really really wants to dance around with some sort of 'loof', (or 'proof')...in other words lots of talk and more, twisting of these terms I don't understand anyway ?
  ..."What's this guy want ?  What 'source' ?...is that like a store, that sells 'ampwatts' (whatever that is)? "

   In other words, BOTH types of technology jargon aren't convincing.  All that a less educated listener takes away is a sense that the arguments are twisted and tiresome.

   People that are like that, just wish to cut to the chase, asking the question that started this pile of debate:
   'OK tell me:...Does my City Hall buy the GREEN stuff, I mean DIRECTLY BUY THIS ?'

  Not everyone takes this dance seriously.
Especially when, I hear, ELECTRONS move slow, you know.  Ahh, that puts the issue to rest.

   Too slow, to not be green, I guess the man was saying.   But, but but:
   Those are different electrons, right ?
(The slow learner gets more confused, at this point.)

That's not the same electrons, right, (that going slow) ?

[Analog Kid]

People that are like that, just wish to cut to the chase, asking the question that started this pile of debate:
'OK tell me:...Does my City Hall buy the GREEN stuff, I mean DIRECTLY BUY THIS ?'

No, wrong.
Forget "buy"; the question is "Does my City Hall use the green stuff [and nothing but the green stuff], I mean directly use it?".

[RJSV]

  Yes, and most folks I think understand the bAsic statement, but hesitate to think that a different system, from obvious directly straight wired all the way.

   It's the human designed substitute that falls way short, of blind trust.
Upon examination, of a particular contract, an auditor might say:
   "What's this 3% surcharge for Web Content Creator ?".
Supplier:  "oh,  they manage the APP,  for the customer use."

 Auditor:  "Then, what's this 15 % surcharge, on the books?"
Supplier:  "That goes to the fossil fuels based supplier,  for occasional use during solar power Plant, during regular scheduled maintainence."

Auditor:  "?? Huh ?   ".
Supplier:  "Please be aware, we can do that, up to 20 % each year, under SB 411, passed as law, in 2026."

Auditor:  "Then,  what's this 18 % rate increase, per year, in California State ?"
Supplier:  "Sir,  we can't control the California State law, and need the regular rate expansion."

   And on and on, go the wiggles and complicated 'mandates', complicating a fair and detailed exam.

Low info customer:  "This is sounding more like 80 % is 'green derivitive',  due to renewables regular maintainence down time.
   It's a SYSTEM, of trading, all made up, to the best design the artificial system designers can do.  Like Monopoly, not perfect.

'Unwashed Person':   "You told us 100 %."

[tooki]

So what matters is how the electricity gets produced. When you buy 100% renewable power, you’re paying for the production, and the right to extract an equivalent amount from the grid.

Yes, yes, yes; no argument.
We get it; electricity is fungible.
But what you cannot and should not say is that "my buildings are being powered by 100% renewable energy", because that is demonstrably false. Which is what that article outright stated, not just implied.

Let’s again use the analogy of money:

If you deposit $1000 cash in the bank, and then later withdraw $1000 cash, by your logic it’s no longer your money, because the banknotes you get on withdrawal aren’t the same ones you put in.

In the power grid, you have multiple power sources, and tons of consumers. So as I said, when you choose to buy renewable only, it means you’re paying for power generated by the renewable sources. It’s dumped into the grid, and you extract an equivalent amount.

Or am I completely misunderstanding the nature of your objection?

Yes, I'm sorry to say that you are.
You have correctly described the nature of fungible things, like money and electricity. No argument there.
And you've correctly described how some people pay for "green" electricity, even though not all of the power that they actually receive comes from those "green" sources. Again, no argument.

The thing that pisses me off is the article I linked to and described waaaay at the top of that thread.
That article attempts to sway readers to the proposition that the City of Chicago is actually receiving and using nothing but "green" energy in its municipal buildings because they've made such a payment arrangement with a third-party electrical supplier.

This is obviously, demonstrably, provably false, but many (most?) of the readers/listeners of that article will come away convinced that "yes, the City of Chicago is actually powering its buildings 100% with electricity from renewable sources". In other words, that all of the electricity that these buildings receive comes only from renewable sources: none from natural gas, coal or nuclear (which is not considered a renewable).

Do you see what I'm getting at here? It's not all that complicated.

So you're saying that you would, indeed, feel it was misleading if the bank paid you out in banknotes that aren't the same ones you deposited? Because that's the equivalent situation.

[Analog Kid]

So you're saying that you would, indeed, feel it was misleading if the bank paid you out in banknotes that aren't the same ones you deposited? Because that's the equivalent situation.

Goddamnit, you're thick-headed.

Look: it's one thing to pay for "green" electricity, by engaging a third-party provider, even if  you don't actually receive that electricity as the totality of the electricity that you actually use, as a way of promoting the use of renewables. (I've actually done this myself.) I think by now we all understand that. (Which fits your money example; your renewable electrons get mixed in with the bad natural gas/coal/nuclear-generated ones.)

It's quite another thing for someone--anyone--to claim "since we (the City of Chicago) are now paying for "green" electricity, our buildings are now 100% powered by this renewable electricity". To the exclusion of any non-renewable sources of electricity. Because that's what that article outright stated.

As if there's a special branch of the utility grid that only feeds that special, 100% renewable electricity to the wall outlets in their municipal buildings. No natural gas, coal or nuclear-generated electricity.

When in fact, the electricity that they receive and use is exactly the same as the electricity that every other utility customer in the city of Chicago uses.

Which means that the claim made in that article is bullshit.

Why can't you see that? To me, it's blindingly obvious.
Am I that bad at explaining things? If so, please let me know so I can try to rectify that.

[racemaniac]

So you're saying that you would, indeed, feel it was misleading if the bank paid you out in banknotes that aren't the same ones you deposited? Because that's the equivalent situation.

Goddamnit, you're thick-headed.

Look: it's one thing to pay for "green" electricity, by engaging a third-party provider, even if  you don't actually receive that electricity as the totality of the electricity that you actually use, as a way of promoting the use of renewables. (I've actually done this myself.) I think by now we all understand that. (Which fits your money example; your renewable electrons get mixed in with the bad natural gas/coal/nuclear-generated ones.)

It's quite another thing for someone--anyone--to claim "since we (the City of Chicago) are now paying for "green" electricity, our buildings are now 100% powered by this renewable electricity". To the exclusion of any non-renewable sources of electricity. Because that's what that article outright stated.

As if there's a special branch of the utility grid that only feeds that special, 100% renewable electricity to the wall outlets in their municipal buildings. No natural gas, coal or nuclear-generated electricity.

When in fact, the electricity that they receive and use is exactly the same as the electricity that every other utility customer in the city of Chicago uses.

Which means that the claim made in that article is bullshit.

Why can't you see that? To me, it's blindingly obvious.
Am I that bad at explaining things? If so, please let me know so I can try to rectify that.

You're not bad at explaining things, it's just that this is how green energy has happened since forever now, and it's commonly seen as an acceptable way to do it. If they pay for their equivalent share of purely green generated energy, it indeed technically doesn't mean all their physical energy comes from green sources, but they pay for that amount of energy to come from green sources, which is the only realistic way to do it anyway.

What is your big issue with this? I think that's the main issue here? What you would expect when an organization goes green (their energy to only physically come from green sources) is pretty much impossible in most cases. The current system where they pay for that much green energy should stimulate investments in green energy, since if many organizations want to implement this, the energy providers only have so much green energy to sell, and if they generate 1GWh of green energy in a period, that's all they've got to sell.

And i like the bank analogy the other person gave, your way of viewing it is a very literal way of viewing it. But if i deposit 100$ in a bank, transfer it to you, and you withdraw 100$, your argument is indeed kind of that i didn't *really* give you 100$ because the physical bills you have aren't the same as the ones i started with.

But to help you a bit with your point, an easy argument you can make however is that it's still a bit dodgy since the amount of green energy they use and pay for, will at the large scale indeed match, but there will most likely be moments when the customers paying for green energy will be using more green energy than exists at that moment on the grid (and in compensation, there will be other moments when they won't be using all of it, and regular customers will be getting some green energy). So those moments when they're using green energy that doesn't exist at that moment in time are a bit dodgy.

But in the end, most people have accepted this as a fair way of "being green". Your interpretation of the article indeed doesn't match reality, but is an accepted way of viewing this practice. It's indeed not entirely truthful in some ways, but to put it in dodgy technology, rather than "it's great what they're doing, but purely technically it's not 100% correct" is a bit much. It's a fair system, and in broad terms saying their buildings are now powered by green energy feels like a fair *enough* statement for most people. It's maybe technically not 100% the case, but close enough, and a good enough attempt at achieving that in a practically possible way, to not be bothered by it.

[m k]

Why can't you see that? To me, it's blindingly obvious.
Am I that bad at explaining things? If so, please let me know so I can try to rectify that.

It's still your money in the bank and it's your money they are giving to you.
You don't accept that *amount* in amount of money equals *amount* in amount of energy.

In my mind those amounts are different in their deep meanings, but I accept the analogy.
I guess the concrete unit is the thing.

[Haenk]

The pooling concept (put something in, take something out) is simplified for a public press statement. Well worth a three+ page discussion.

[TimFox]

I’ve been trying to conceive a scheme that would meet his pedantic requirements, but they are all silly.

[Analog Kid]

I’ve been trying to conceive a scheme that would meet his pedantic requirements, but they are all silly.

Dunno just what you consider my "pedantic requirements" (assuming this is directed at me), but here's the very simple thing that would stop me from being pissed off at this situation:

Report the story accurately and explain that while the City of Chicago is investing in "green" energy through a third party (not ComEd), they will not be receiving electricity that's 100% generated by renewables. Not yet, anyhow.

(This "scheme" is aimed at NPR in this case.)

[Analog Kid]

But to help you a bit with your point, an easy argument you can make however is that it's still a bit dodgy since the amount of green energy they use and pay for, will at the large scale indeed match, but there will most likely be moments when the customers paying for green energy will be using more green energy than exists at that moment on the grid (and in compensation, there will be other moments when they won't be using all of it, and regular customers will be getting some green energy). So those moments when they're using green energy that doesn't exist at that moment in time are a bit dodgy.

So you agree that this claim is "a bit dodgy". I guess I'll take what I can get from your comment.
But it's far, far worse than just "a bit dodgy". Remember waaaaay back at the very start of this thread where I posted

As of 2023, Illinois generates 54.89% of electricity from nuclear power, 31.58% from fossil fuels (comprising of coal, natural gas, petroleum, and other gases), and 13.53% from renewables (comprising of wind, solar, hydropower, and biomass).

Which means that less than 14% of the electricity that Northern Illinois customers receive comes from renewables. So "these moments when they're using green energy that doesn't exist at that moment" will be most of the time. So it's more than just a debating-society point; it more or less completely contradicts the whole thrust of their story, which is that Northern Illinois electrical customers will now magically be receiving electrons that are produced 100% from green, renewable resources.

Do you see that?

[RJSV]

   WTF,  this is good stuff, for myself, because I find the crafted stupidity to be educating.

   THIS ONE, ESPECIALLY:
   "...will be using more green energy, than exists, at the moment."
Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrgph.  Can you feel my contempt, for Arrogant fools !?

   To make their point,  if they have to,  fools want to turn their heads,  all the way around, 36/,  like Linda Blair,  in that old horror movie.

   It's an un-verified system, yo!   You can flaps the mouths all you want;  but it's like you are 'worshipping a false god !
(Ohhh,  clever is I,  when aroused.)

Clever and QUITTING,  this forum, now, (soon).

[Analog Kid]

Clever and QUITTING,  this forum, now, (soon).

Ack, wut? Quitting?
Why, pray tell?
It wasn't us, was it?

[racemaniac]

Which means that less than 14% of the electricity that Northern Illinois customers receive comes from renewables. So "these moments when they're using green energy that doesn't exist at that moment" will be most of the time. So it's more than just a debating-society point; it more or less completely contradicts the whole thrust of their story, which is that Northern Illinois electrical customers will now magically be receiving electrons that are produced 100% from green, renewable resources.

Do you see that?

I think you're missing a big thing here: It seems from your argument that you assume that they're selling 100% of their energy as green energy, and then your complaint would of course make sense.

I've got the impression you're looking at it like this:
14% of their energy is green, they're selling their energy as "green", this is bullshit.

While we're looking at it like this:
14% of their energy is green. The city that wants to be green uses (i'm taking a random number here just to make the point) 1% of their capacity. The city pays extra to get a certificate that their 1% is green energy. The energy provider can also do that also for other customers, but the amount of green energy they sell can't exceed 14% of their capacity, since that's the share of energy they sell that's actually green.

So correct me if i'm wrong, but your impression seems to be: They have 14% green energy, they sell their energy as "green" while 86% isn't, so that's total and utter nonsense

And our impression is: 14% of their energy is green, they sell up to 14% of their energy as green, the rest will be sold as not green energy. Of course it's all on the same grid, but in the end they're not selling more green energy than they have, so it's mostly fair and correct (give or take some minor details).

[TimFox]

US commercial law (from common law) discusses fungible commodities in great detail.
Illinois has a common distribution grid, but customers can choose from different power sources, paying the source and paying the grid operator for distribution.
Physics tells us that electrons are literally identical particles.

[Analog Kid]

So correct me if i'm wrong, but your impression seems to be: They have 14% green energy, they sell their energy as "green" while 86% isn't, so that's total and utter nonsense

That is indeed my impression.

And our impression is: 14% of their energy is green, they sell up to 14% of their energy as green, the rest will be sold as not green energy. Of course it's all on the same grid, but in the end they're not selling more green energy than they have, so it's mostly fair and correct (give or take some minor details).

Yes. As you said, "14% of their energy is green, they sell up to 14% of their energy as green, the rest will be sold as not green energy".

So far, so good.

And "Of course it's all on the same grid, but in the end they're not selling more green energy than they have". Also hard to argue with.

But you're somehow missing the point: even though they're actually using a mix of electricity, including (presumably) the 14% of "green" energy that they're paying for, the other 86% from non-renewable sources, the article gives the impression that they're using 100% green energy. Not just paying for it, but actually powering their municipal buildings with 100% green electrons.

Do you not see that this is, at the very least, deceptive? The energy they're using definitely does not come 100% from renewable sources. Which is the impression that NPR's reporting leaves us with.

[Analog Kid]

US commercial law (from common law) discusses fungible commodities in great detail.
Illinois has a common distribution grid, but customers can choose from different power sources, paying the source and paying the grid operator for distribution.
Physics tells us that electrons are literally identical particles.

Yes. All of which boils down to this: as a (ComEd, right?) utility customer, you can pay for electricity from a particular power source, say solar or wind. Fine and dandy. (As I wrote, I've done that, as a PG&E customer in California.)
But the electricity that comes out of your wall sockets is going to come from that solar and wind in whatever proportion they comprise the current energy mix (~14% according to the figures I got from last year), with the remaining ~86% coming from other (non-renewable) sources.

I know you understand this. But apparently the news reporters at NPR don't.

[Haenk]

Yes. All of which boils down to this: as a (ComEd, right?) utility customer, you can pay for electricity from a particular power source, say solar or wind.

No, you can't. You can't select your individual power source. You can only pay your utility company to buy energy from the type of source you selected. And even that is not meaning, that your are receiving "25% solar power in the mix" - it is an long(er) term average. In mid-summer you might have 50% solar power in the mix, in autumn that might be only 10%, but 50% wind power, while in december you are down to 0% solar, 10% wind and 90% coal. The utility company however has to make sure, they have bought the right mix of energy, so customer contracts will be fulfilled. And that's what they are telling you in the PR: "We are running on green power" means "the utilities company has to order the amount x of green energy to fulfil their contractual obligation". Moaning about not having a direct power line from Hoover Dam to the town building to make sure to only receive green power is just nuts.

It is all a game of large numbers, strategic planning and sourcing. And probably a bit of luck, too.

[racemaniac]

But you're somehow missing the point: even though they're actually using a mix of electricity, including (presumably) the 14% of "green" energy that they're paying for, the other 86% from non-renewable sources, the article gives the impression that they're using 100% green energy. Not just paying for it, but actually powering their municipal buildings with 100% green electrons.

Do you not see that this is, at the very least, deceptive? The energy they're using definitely does not come 100% from renewable sources. Which is the impression that NPR's reporting leaves us with.

I don't see it as deceptive though. I like the bank analogy someone made here. Suppose i set up a charity, the money goes to a bank, and i then transfer that money to a good cause. Will you then complain that the vast majority of money i transferred is not from charity as the money in the bank is mostly from commercial origin, and a significant part probably even from crime? Is they money they received thus not from charity because it passed through a bank?

We consider electricity as a fungible thing, and trying to get the exact electrons you generated to your customer is as much a waste of time & resources as getting the exact dollar you donated to the good cause. In the end all dollars are the same, as are all electrons.

So no, this doesn't feel deceptive to me. It's the most efficient (and green) way to get the green energy to the customers, anything else wouldn't make sense. And saying they're 100% running on green energy seems fair to me. For fungible resources this is how we also view it in other cases, so why would energy be different?

[Analog Kid]

Yes. All of which boils down to this: as a (ComEd, right?) utility customer, you can pay for electricity from a particular power source, say solar or wind.

No, you can't. You can't select your individual power source. You can only pay your utility company to buy energy from the type of source you selected.

Goddamnit, that's exactly what I was getting at. Sheesh. It feels like we're playing a game of "telephone" here or something.

You can pay for a selected source of your electricity, like solar, wind, etc. You won't be receiving electricity from only that selected source, though, since electricity, like money, water and a lot of other things, is fungible.

Are we agreed on that, finally?

In which case, the article in question is deceptive, because it states, almost outright, that the City of Chicago is receiving 100% electricity from renewable sources at its municipal buildings. Which, of course, is impossible.

Do you, at long last, see what I'm getting at here?

[Analog Kid]

But you're somehow missing the point: even though they're actually using a mix of electricity, including (presumably) the 14% of "green" energy that they're paying for, the other 86% from non-renewable sources, the article gives the impression that they're using 100% green energy. Not just paying for it, but actually powering their municipal buildings with 100% green electrons.

Do you not see that this is, at the very least, deceptive? The energy they're using definitely does not come 100% from renewable sources. Which is the impression that NPR's reporting leaves us with.

I don't see it as deceptive though. I like the bank analogy someone made here. Suppose i set up a charity, the money goes to a bank, and i then transfer that money to a good cause. Will you then complain that the vast majority of money i transferred is not from charity as the money in the bank is mostly from commercial origin, and a significant part probably even from crime? Is they money they received thus not from charity because it passed through a bank?

Using your example, yes, it would be deceptive if I claimed that 100% of the money I was receiving from the bank was from my charity, as the article in question claims that 100% of the energy delivered to and used by the City of Chicago (not stated outright in the article but clearly implied) is from renewable sources.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

[TimFox]

My electricity bill from Commonwealth Edison in Chicago includes separate charges from the energy supplier and the delivery company.
In my case, both are ComEd, but I have a choice for the former from several firms.
It all arrives at 60 Hz.

[Analog Kid]

Heh; maybe those "green" electricity suppliers have figured out how to tag their electrons somehow, some subatomic particle or such. Then the end user can filter their electricity to only allow those tagged electrons to flow through their circuits.

Voilà! 100% renewable electricity!

It all arrives at 60 Hz.

Are you sure about that? Not 59.98 Hz? What's the rated accuracy there?
(no need to answer--it's a, it's a, a joke, son)

[TimFox]

Verdure (greenness) depends on the generation, not so much the distribution.

[Analog Kid]

Verdure (greenness) depends on the generation, not so much the distribution.

No argument there.
So if I sign up with one of those "green" providers, are you OK with my claiming that I'm now using 100% renewable electricity?

[TimFox]

If the green provider is legitimate and supplies you with your total demand, then you may claim that to whoever needs to know.

[Analog Kid]

If the green provider is legitimate and supplies you with your total demand, then you may claim that to whoever needs to know.

(bolding mine)

Ah, but there's the rub:
If I'm a customer in Northern Illinois and I sign up with a "green" electricity supplier, there's no fucking way that they're going to supply me with my total demand! Because there's no special transmission line between that supplier and my house (or municipal building or whatever) that supplies only 100% certified Clean Green Electricity. Because the transmission line that goes to my house/building supplies their "green" electricity mixed in with all kinds of non-green electricity.

In other words, I'm paying for 100% renewable electricity, but I'm getting ~14% renewable electricity, according to the figures I posted above.

And you damn well know that. So your comment just further muddies the waters.

I mean, how in the wide wide world of sports would it even be possible for such a 3rd-party supplier to supply anyone with their "total demand"?

[racemaniac]

But you're somehow missing the point: even though they're actually using a mix of electricity, including (presumably) the 14% of "green" energy that they're paying for, the other 86% from non-renewable sources, the article gives the impression that they're using 100% green energy. Not just paying for it, but actually powering their municipal buildings with 100% green electrons.

Do you not see that this is, at the very least, deceptive? The energy they're using definitely does not come 100% from renewable sources. Which is the impression that NPR's reporting leaves us with.

I don't see it as deceptive though. I like the bank analogy someone made here. Suppose i set up a charity, the money goes to a bank, and i then transfer that money to a good cause. Will you then complain that the vast majority of money i transferred is not from charity as the money in the bank is mostly from commercial origin, and a significant part probably even from crime? Is they money they received thus not from charity because it passed through a bank?

Using your example, yes, it would be deceptive if I claimed that 100% of the money I was receiving from the bank was from my charity, as the article in question claims that 100% of the energy delivered to and used by the City of Chicago (not stated outright in the article but clearly implied) is from renewable sources.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

Are you now trolling me??

So if i hand you a 100$ in bills, you got a 100$ from me.

If i put the 100$ in the bank, and transfer it to you, you suddenly find it disingenuous to say you got a 100$ from me since it came from the bank?

So if i got a 100$ debt with you, i better make sure i hand it to you in cash or you'll start claiming i never gave you your 100$ back (or even if i hand you bills, if it aren't the same bills you gave me, i didn't actually pay you back?)

....

Let's assume you're honest (not entirely convinced), just know that 99.9...% (at least a few more 9's) of people don't agree with you, so that it's considered okay by society to word it the way it's worded in the article. I get you might disagree with it. But this the kind of thing that the majority decides what it means, and pretty much everyone views it the other way.

[Analog Kid]

Let's assume you're honest (not entirely convinced), just know that 99.9...% (at least a few more 9's) of people don't agree with you, so that it's considered okay by society to word it the way it's worded in the article. I get you might disagree with it. But this the kind of thing that the majority decides what it means, and pretty much everyone views it the other way.

Trolling? Certainly not; to me, this whole thing is so unbelievably, blindingly obvious.

So let's take this step by step, see if you can get why this bothers me so much. Assuming you're willing to play along here, please answer the following questions:

First: the article I'm referring to makes the claim that the City of Chicago is now going to be receiving 100% renewable electricity for its municipal buildings. From that article:

Chicago is now powering all its municipal buildings with 100% renewable energy and the city helped finance a major solar farm.

To me, and I think to any reasonable person reading this, that would be taken to mean that all of the electricity that the city is using for its municipal buildings comes from renewable sources. Not only that they are paying for 100% renewable electricity but that they are actually receiving and using only renewable energy in those buildings.

Do you 1)agree? 2)disagree?

Second: the City of Chicago has an arrangement with a 3rd-party electrical supplier, who they're paying for 100% renewable electricity (looks like solar in this case, could be other forms of renewable energy). So they're paying for 100% renewable electricity.

1)Agree? 2)disagree?

Third: The utility company that supplies the entire city of Chicago is Commonwealth Edison, commonly known as ComEd. The municipal buildings for the city are supplied by that utility, not by the 3rd-party supplier. There's one set of transmission lines maintained by ComEd which supply electricity to everyone in the city of Chicago.

1)Agree? 2)disagree?

Fourth: The regional utility company, ComEd, supplies electricity from various sources, which are mixed together in the grid. According to the source I gave in the first post here, the mix is:

As of 2023, Illinois generates 54.89% of electricity from nuclear power, 31.58% from fossil fuels (comprising of coal, natural gas, petroleum, and other gases), and 13.53% from renewables (comprising of wind, solar, hydropower, and biomass).

Which means that ~14% of the electricity that is supplied from the grid comes from renewables. This is to every single electrical customer in Northern Illinois.

1)Agree? 2)disagree?

Fifth: Therefore, and here's the crux of the matter: the electricity that the City of Chicago actually receives and uses for its municipal buildings consists of ~14% electricity from renewable sources, and the rest from non-renewable sources.

1)Agree? 2)disagree?

Therefore, in summary: Since it has been established that the City of Chicago actually receives and uses a mix of electricity that contains only ~14% electricity from renewable sources, it is incorrect to state--as the article clearly says at the start--that "Chicago is now powering all its municipal buildings with 100% renewable energy".

1)Agree? 2)disagree?

[racemaniac]

Fifth: Therefore, and here's the crux of the matter: the electricity that the City of Chicago actually receives and uses for its municipal buildings consists of ~14% electricity from renewable sources, and the rest from non-renewable sources.

1)Agree? 2)disagree?

Therefore, in summary: Since it has been established that the City of Chicago actually receives and uses a mix of electricity that contains only ~14% electricity from renewable sources, it is incorrect to state--as the article clearly says at the start--that "Chicago is now powering all its municipal buildings with 100% renewable energy".

1)Agree? 2)disagree?

Are you reading our replies? Because i think it's pretty clear by now that this is the point where we disagree.

Do you know what the word fungible means? NFT became famous a while ago and is about Non Fungible Tokens, meaning each token is unique. But for electricity, we've now been saying each electron is the same as the other (though, i'm sure someone on this site would correct us since that's not how AC works, but it's an easy way to discuss this).

You're applying the rules we use on non fungible items on something fungible, and then you come to results that for most people don't make sense.

If we act as if this, for example, is about paintings, your argument makes perfect sense. Say they want nature paintings, and buy paintings from someone that just makes nature paintings. Then those paintings go into the "painting grid", where they're mixed up with paintings of office buildings, and they end up receiving 14% paintings of nature, and 86% paintings of office buildings from said grid. Even though they're paying for paintings of nature, they're obviously not receiving them, and using a "painting grid" that mingles them all makes no sense for non fungible items.

Now we have the bank analogy. I need to get 100$ to you, and you live on the other side of the country. So i transfer 100$ to you, and you get 100$ from an atm. The bill(s) you got from the ATM are obviously not the same bills i started with. And the money you got from the bank came from the big "money grid" inside the bank that contains money from all kinds of people and businesses and... Yet when someone would aks where you got the money, you'd say you got it from me.

So let's take your fifth item there: "Fifth: Therefore, and here's the crux of the matter: the electricity that the City of Chicago actually receives and uses for its municipal buildings consists of ~14% electricity from renewable sources, and the rest from non-renewable sources.". Yeah, for non fungible items it works that way. But i really love the money example here. When someone asks "where did you get the money", will you say "racemaniac gave it to me" or would you go to the banks website and say "looking at the banks figures, 14% is from the saving funds of people, 86% is from companies". Obviously the first, because for fungible things different rules apply, them getting mixed up in the process of transferring them to someone else is irrelevant, that's the entire point of money. Each dollar has the exact same value, if it didn't it wouldn't work as a currency and our economic system collapses.

And so for power it's the same, if i pay someone for power, and they put that power in the "electricity bank", and i withdraw it from there, it's normal to say i got the electricity from them. Yes, it got mixed around with other electricity on the way to me, but we do it that way not to deceive people, but because for fungible things that's by far the most efficient way of doing this, and would yield the same result as not working with a shared grid (well, not exactly the same result, both sources can cover for eachother when the other has issues, making it a better experience for everyone).

So unless you can give examples of other fungible things that follow the non fungible rules you're trying to apply here, you don't have much of an argument. And unless you start to specifically address this point rather than just making the same statement over and over again without acknowledging this crucial point, the discussion will end here. It can be interesting, but not if you don't address the difference between fungible and non fungible things.

[m k]

Why only general source is accepted, that's not balanced.

Feed of more than one source is not homogeneous.
What if one part is constantly feeding the grid a bit lower voltage than the other?
One destination is also closer to the source than the other.

How do you know from what direction a destination is sourced?

[Tation]

But for electricity, we've now been saying each electron is the same as the other

Even if we were able to "tag" each electron and trace their movements individually, we will find than electrons moving at home wiring neither reach nor pass thru any generating facility connected to the grid, as electrons do not pass thru transformers, energy does.

So we are not talking about electrons or electricity moving from here to there, but about energy, a genuinely fungible thing. The concepts of green or fossil energy are not physical concepts, but artificial ones and, IMHO, saying that somebody buys green energy is perfectly compatible with saying that the energy it consumes is green as it comes from green sources because it was bought to a green producer.

[Analog Kid]

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes: I know that electricity is completely fungible.

That's the whole fucking point!

You have not addressed the point of my problem with the NPR article. (Notice I have no problem with the idea of fungibility.)

They (NPR) are claiming that "Chicago is now powering all its municipal buildings with 100% renewable energy".

Do you not see the problem with that statement?

Do you believe that "Chicago is now powering all its municipal buildings with 100% renewable energy". No, of course you don't. Because electricity is fungible, and the renewable electricity that they're paying for is mixed in with the ~86% of electricity that is not renewable.

Right?

So my problem is definitely not with the idea of fungibility; in fact, that's the underlying concept that renders their (NPR's) statement so invalid.

Do you see the problem now?

Again, just to be crystal-clear here: the statement is that "Chicago is now powering all its municipal buildings with 100% renewable energy". Which means (are you with me here?) that ALL the electricity that Chicago is using to power its municipal buildings--100% of it--comes from renewable sources.

Do you agree with that statement? Can you possibly defend it?
No, because we know--because electricity is fungible--that their paid-for renewable electricity is mixed in with lots of non-renewable electricity.

Sheesh.

[Analog Kid]

So, @racemaniac, I do accept your explanation of the way that fungible things are normally looked at and described. Nothing to argue with there.

But the fact still remains that NPR chose to describe a fungible item--electricity--in an incorrect and deceptive way when they claimed that Chicago was receiving and using 100% renewable energy in their buildings. A statement that you must admit is just wrong, wrong, wrong. (We know it's wrong because we know how electricity is fungible.) Despite the conventions we use for fungible things (money, etc.): this flies in the face of those conventions.

You see that?

[SteveThackery]

Therefore, in summary: Since it has been established that the City of Chicago actually receives and uses a mix of electricity that contains only ~14% electricity from renewable sources, it is incorrect to state--as the article clearly says at the start--that "Chicago is now powering all its municipal buildings with 100% renewable energy".

1)Agree? 2)disagree?

Disagree, because your argument misses the point. Agree, in a literal (but irrelevant) sense.

I think money is the closest analogy we've come up with so far. My pension provider (Acme Pensions PLC) pumps £1000 into my bank every month. Provided I extract no more than £1000 every month, I can legitimately say that all the money I spend comes from Acme Pensions.

Yes, the bank receives loads of other money from other sources, and disburses money to loads of other sinks, so in one sense my money is mixed in with everyone else's. But nevertheless, it is reasonable and legitimate for me to claim that 100% of my money comes from Acme Pensions PLC.

We can all understand and accept the main premise of your argument: that only 14% of the electricity pumped into Chicago's grid is "green", therefore only 14% of the electricity taken out of the grid is green. In that sense your argument is obviously valid. But it misses the point that the grid is not the source of the electricity. For every kWh taken out, someone must put a kWh in.  The person taking out that kWh pays a supplier to put a matching kWh into the grid. So there is a direct provider/customer relationship. The customer can legitimately claim that the kWh they extracted came from their chosen supplier.

As I said, we all understand your argument - it's not difficult. But can you not, in turn, understand and acknowledge the other argument: that for every kWh I extract from the grid, I have paid Green Energy PLC to pump a kWh into the grid. Therefore I can reasonably claim that all the electricity I use comes from a green provider, because I have paid them to pump the same amount of energy into the grid.

I think you do understand it perfectly well, but you've got your heels so dug in you can't admit it. It's obvious to any observer that both arguments are legitimate, and can comfortably co-exist, because they are addressing two different concepts. Your argument does not undermine or illegitimise the other argument - they are both true.

[Analog Kid]

As I said, we all understand your argument - it's not difficult. But can you not, in turn, understand and acknowledge the other argument: that for every kWh I extract from the grid, I have paid Green Energy PLC to pump a kWh into the grid. Therefore I can reasonably claim that all the electricity I use comes from a green provider, because I have paid them to pump the same amount of energy into the grid.

Hmm, that actually makes sense. Let me chew on that for a while.
Still not convinced that "Green Energy PLC" actually provides all of their electrical load, but maybe ...

[Analog Kid]

OK, I guess I can't argue with your conclusion: if Chicago pays Green Energy LLC $X for Y kWh of electricity, generated from renewable sources, and if Green actually puts that renewable energy into the grid, and if Green is the only party that Chicago pays for electricity, then it doesn't matter that Green's electricity is mixed in with Brown Energy LLC's electrons, nor that the city is actually only receiving 14% of Greens' electricity at any given moment.

It still smells of a certain amount of sophistry to me, and I'm not sure that the average Joe is going to be able to wrap their head around it. I have to say that you deserve credit for an explanation that actually makes sense; nobody else in this thread had as convincing an argument, and I'm not even sure that they thought of the problem in the way that you did.

And of course there's the issue of whether Green Energy LLC is honest, and that they're actually putting Y kWh of electricity into the grid--from 100% renewables, natch--into the grid on Chicago's behalf. Makes me think of all the dishonesty and shenanigans around "cap & trade" schemes that rendered that scheme untenable. But that's a separate issue.

[tooki]

So you're saying that you would, indeed, feel it was misleading if the bank paid you out in banknotes that aren't the same ones you deposited? Because that's the equivalent situation.

Goddamnit, you're thick-headed.

Look: it's one thing to pay for "green" electricity, by engaging a third-party provider, even if  you don't actually receive that electricity as the totality of the electricity that you actually use, as a way of promoting the use of renewables. (I've actually done this myself.) I think by now we all understand that. (Which fits your money example; your renewable electrons get mixed in with the bad natural gas/coal/nuclear-generated ones.)

It's quite another thing for someone--anyone--to claim "since we (the City of Chicago) are now paying for "green" electricity, our buildings are now 100% powered by this renewable electricity". To the exclusion of any non-renewable sources of electricity. Because that's what that article outright stated.

As if there's a special branch of the utility grid that only feeds that special, 100% renewable electricity to the wall outlets in their municipal buildings. No natural gas, coal or nuclear-generated electricity.

When in fact, the electricity that they receive and use is exactly the same as the electricity that every other utility customer in the city of Chicago uses.

Which means that the claim made in that article is bullshit.

Why can't you see that? To me, it's blindingly obvious.
Am I that bad at explaining things? If so, please let me know so I can try to rectify that.

I think the issue is less me being “thick-headed” and more that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about how electricity works. Despite the fact that the “water analogy” of electricity works to illustrate a lot of things, it isn’t 100%, and electricity does not behave like water.

Suppose we were talking about water instead, and that our hypothetical bottled water supplier let us purchase three different types of water: one comes from natural springs on a mountain, one is ground water, and the last is treated sewage plant effluent. In this case the three waters aren’t fungible, due to different compositions and provenances of the water itself. You would rightfully be upset if you paid for mountain spring water and they instead delivered you bottled of cleaned sewer water.

But electricity isn’t water. 

Electricity isn’t a bulk material product you pull from the outlet. No matter where the power is generated, the electrons that move in and out of your socket are not the same electrons that were physically set in motion at the power plant. The drift speed of electrons is only about 1mm per second, and in AC, they are oscillating back and forth. The electricity we use is basically electron “pressure waves” within conductive materials. It’s basically a gigantic Newton’s Cradle where each electron never actually travels anywhere, it just moves around one spot.

Consequently, the green power one buys from the grid is no less original than the ordinary power bought by a non-green-buying customer, since none of the power we use is electrons that actually traveled to us from the plant. We use the force imparted onto the Newton’s Cradle of electrons by the power plant.

OK, I guess I can't argue with your conclusion: if Chicago pays Green Energy LLC $X for Y kWh of electricity, generated from renewable sources, and if Green actually puts that renewable energy into the grid, and if Green is the only party that Chicago pays for electricity, then it doesn't matter that Green's electricity is mixed in with Brown Energy LLC's electrons, nor that the city is actually only receiving 14% of Greens' electricity at any given moment.

You’re never getting any of the electrons generated at the power plant. There’s no such thing as “Green Energy’s electrons” and “Brown Energy LLC’s electrons” in terms of what comes out of your outlet.

[Analog Kid]

You’re never getting any of the electrons generated at the power plant. There’s no such thing as “Green Energy’s electrons” and “Brown Energy LLC’s electrons” in terms of what comes out of your outlet.

OK, I guess you can be forgiven for coming a bit late to the game here.
But let's just forget about that whole "how fast do electrons move due to electrical current" thing. It is of no relevance here, and just serves to muddy the waters further.
The whole point here is what the City of Chicago is paying for, and what they're receiving in terms of electrical power*.
I think this has been pretty well resolved, with the result that I've been convinced (by Steve Thackery) to adopt a different view of things. I'm willing to admit that by paying for 100% renewable energy, the city can then claim that they're powering their buildings with 100% "green" energy, even though they are not doing that physically at any moment in time. I still have some discomfort over the claim made in the NPR article, but I guess at this point that's just my problem.

* And puleeze, let's don't get into the weeds over the technical differences between power, energy, force, etc. The term is being used in it's commonly-accepted layperson meaning.

[tooki]

You’re never getting any of the electrons generated at the power plant. There’s no such thing as “Green Energy’s electrons” and “Brown Energy LLC’s electrons” in terms of what comes out of your outlet.

OK, I guess you can be forgiven for coming a bit late to the game here.
But let's just forget about that whole "how fast do electrons move due to electrical current" thing. It is of no relevance here, and just serves to muddy the waters further.
The whole point here is what the City of Chicago is paying for, and what they're receiving in terms of electrical power*.
I think this has been pretty well resolved, with the result that I've been convinced (by Steve Thackery) to adopt a different view of things. I'm willing to admit that by paying for 100% renewable energy, the city can then claim that they're powering their buildings with 100% "green" energy, even though they are not doing that physically at any moment in time. I still have some discomfort over the claim made in the NPR article, but I guess at this point that's just my problem.

* And puleeze, let's don't get into the weeds over the technical differences between power, energy, force, etc. The term is being used in it's commonly-accepted layperson meaning.

It’s taken you ten days to understand what everyone has been telling you, and you have the gall to accuse me of being “late to the game” (after calling me “thick” earlier)?!? I’ve explained to you the exact same things everyone else has (including SteveThackery, whose post just reiterates what several people said before). If anyone here is slow and thick, it’s you.

The whole point here is what the City of Chicago is paying for, and what they're receiving in terms of electrical power*.
…
* And puleeze, let's don't get into the weeds over the technical differences between power, energy, force, etc. The term is being used in its commonly-accepted layperson meaning.

Um, did you even read my post you were replying to? I refer to “electrical power” throughout. Not sure why you thought it’d be necessary to try and lecture me on this.

[Analog Kid]

* And puleeze, let's don't get into the weeds over the technical differences between power, energy, force, etc. The term is being used in its commonly-accepted layperson meaning.

Um, did you even read my post you were replying to? I refer to “electrical power” throughout. Not sure why you thought it’d be necessary to try and lecture me on this.

Wasn't aimed at you but as preemptive protection against possible pedantry from others.

[forrestc]

One other thing that can be considered is that part of the way the energy grid works is odd.   I know this is just another way of explaining. However, when I saw this thread was still going, I figured I'd add my explanation even though it seems like the thought process has finally reached an understanding of how fungible energy is.

Energy providers are paid to keep adding energy to the grid to keep the voltage at a certain level and maintain the frequency (as frequency tends to drift lower when the load exceeds supply due to traditional 'spinning' generators being much of the grid).

Energy consumers try to drag the voltage and frequency down by removing energy from the grid.

As a consumer,  you're paying your provider to add enough energy to the grid to overcome your draw from the grid and keep the whole thing at the correct voltage and frequency.   If the company you're paying to overcome your draw on the grid is using 100% clean energy, I don't have a problem saying that I'm using 100% clean energy.   

It doesn't matter WHERE on the grid the energy to replace the energy you remove is added. If an energy provider three states over but on the same grid doesn't put enough on, the voltage and frequency will droop at your house and, of course, everyone else's.

I'd also grant that if you want to get pedantic, it's hard to ensure that your provider always puts enough power on the grid at any second to overcome your load. The grid is designed to avoid droops by taking minute-by-minute variations from sources that can quickly change their output (Ironically, solar battery storage is rapidly becoming the preferred source here).  But in the big picture, your provider puts enough energy on the grid to overcome your load.  And, if your provider has committed to putting enough clean energy on the grid to overcome your load, there's no question in my mind that you can say that you're getting all your energy from that provider, since they're providing the service of overcoming your draw from the grid.

[Analog Kid]

Good explanation.

However, sorry to bring in another fly in the ointment, but what about nighttime?

If the third-party supplier is supplying solar-generated electricity (as seems to be the case here), what if 1) it's nighttime and 2) the supplier either has no or insufficient energy storage (battery, pumped water, etc.) to supply their part of the load?

I would say that in this situation, if someone in one of the City of Chicago's municipal buildings flips on a light switch, the power to those lights is definitely not going to be coming from their 100% renewable source. In which case NPR's statement about using 100% renewable energy will be demonstrably false.

What do you say about that?

[themadhippy]

What do you say about that?

simples,whatever you used during the night is put into the grid during the day ,at the end of the 24 hr period you use 37Kw the supplier pumps 37kw in

[Someone]

What do you say about that?

simples,whatever you used during the night is put into the grid during the day ,at the end of the 24 hr period you use 37Kw the supplier pumps 37kw in

As more people buy renewable energy at some point the rising expenses of storage will start to impact the price, right now its "just" using lower duty cycle on the (generally already depreciated) fossil generators. All the alternatives are more expensive.

[Analog Kid]

What do you say about that?

simples,whatever you used during the night is put into the grid during the day ,at the end of the 24 hr period you use 37Kw the supplier pumps 37kw in

I think I was able to answer my own question here.
Since the billing cycle is probably (I'm guessing) monthly, what matters is that for each kWh the city pulls out of the grid during that period, the 3rd-party utility supplier puts that much power into the grid.
So I guess nighttime doesn't really matter.

[TimFox]

I don't know the mix that Chicago's supplier uses, but the Midwest is now full of wind farms--many in Illinois and Iowa.

[Ranayna]

All this discussion would be moot, if the unique german innovation of the "Atomstromfilter" (nuklear power filter) could be adjusted to be a "non-renewable filter"
http://www.nucleostop.de/

[Yes, i am aware that this is a hoax, i just find it funny that no one here as thrown it in yet]

By the way, someone mentioned that paying more for renewable energy is common. Here in germany it is actually not that unusual to get renewable energt tarrifs that are cheaper than normal energy tarrifs.

[TimFox]

I remember a news photo from decades ago about an anti-nuclear demonstration in Germany, showing a food vendor selling to the crowd.  His sign read (if memory serves me) “Kernkraft? Nein danke. Unser Wurst ist Atomfrei.”

[tszaboo]

By the way, someone mentioned that paying more for renewable energy is common. Here in germany it is actually not that unusual to get renewable energt tarrifs that are cheaper than normal energy tarrifs.

As I said before, green electricity is purchased in units of MWh, and they come with a certificate that it was produced green. You pay a bit of extra to make sure of this. The extra money goes to the electricity generators.
For example in Belgium, this was 60 EUR per MWh a few years ago, which was artificially inflated because it was a subsidy. These green certificates are a tradable commodity. You can buy it, sell it, consume it or generate it. The point isn't to actually make the electron green. The point is to incentivize green electricity generation, which is objectively good*. You can complain that the electrons aren't painted green, but this is just complete misunderstanding of the energy market. The price of certificate is also dropping, depending on how many sources are connected to the network over time, and it's going to completely disappear in the future. Especially since green generation has lower levelized costs nowadays than other sources.
The energy market has it's issues, but this is not one of them.

[Ranayna]

I know how these renewalble tarrifs work.
Of course they don't ensure that only renewable power is routed to my home.

But still, they can be cheaper than normal tarrifs, even with the same energy company.

[tszaboo]

I know how these renewalble tarrifs work.
Of course they don't ensure that only renewable power is routed to my home.

But still, they can be cheaper than normal tarrifs, even with the same energy company.

Don't take it that way, It wasn't partially addressed at you.

[RJSV]

Yeah but this (see last few posts),
This at least DOES have the appearance of a common (lame) argument technique.
Sneaky, because the last post'er feels they have to defend, or explain some mis-quoted thing.
 Like here:  Claim that 'Electrons aren't Green'.

   Uh no.  That makes it sound like it's necessary to debunk something EVERYONE knows was not the real,  literal situation.
(The post simply meant, 
   'GREEN SOURCE'. )

   No need to make the critic look stupid, ey ?
They meant green sourced,  but we're not expecting near-ridiculed distorted meaning.
 
 I might be wrong,  but that's a common Immature verbal tactic.  Maybe common in any discussion around energy use .



..like a political topic,  these days.

[RJSV]

...or,  another way to distill the issue:
   Commenter simply meant (I think),  that he didn't instantly trust,  some 'certificate' at least not blindly trust.

   A person could counter,  my statement,  by saying:   "Cap and trade works that way."

   Sooooo,  then we don't need any FRAUD laws or protections,  for certificate based 'green identified' or 'true GOLD' Cert.
Man,  I'd hate to have a Cert. for a huge BAR of Gold,...and later find out it is bogus Certificate !

These things happen.   I never asked any Doctor to show credentials,  (although bad analogy because Doctors often DO display certifications,  sure.

   I seem to recall things about 'Cap and Trade' being bogus...  It's just that I trust that real,  Gold Bar,  (in hand).
Green Programs generally don't smell right, somehow,...but it's more the people that seem on a scam,  somehow.

   O.K. now,  make me defend :
   "...(Rick-Jack). "He thinks it's for gold colored electrons !"


(didn't say that....oh wait;  I DID...
)

[tszaboo]

...or,  another way to distill the issue:
   Commenter simply meant (I think),  that he didn't instantly trust,  some 'certificate' at least not blindly trust.

   A person could counter,  my statement,  by saying:   "Cap and trade works that way."

   Sooooo,  then we don't need any FRAUD laws or protections,  for certificate based 'green identified' or 'true GOLD' Cert.
Man,  I'd hate to have a Cert. for a huge BAR of Gold,...and later find out it is bogus Certificate !

These things happen.   I never asked any Doctor to show credentials,  (although bad analogy because Doctors often DO display certifications,  sure.

   I seem to recall things about 'Cap and Trade' being bogus...  It's just that I trust that real,  Gold Bar,  (in hand).
Green Programs generally don't smell right, somehow,...but it's more the people that seem on a scam,  somehow.

   O.K. now,  make me defend :
   "...(Rick-Jack). "He thinks it's for gold colored electrons !"


(didn't say that....oh wait;  I DID...
)

Can you write like a normal human please, instead of this fever dream bullshit?

[RJSV]

    Sorry,  but I'm not in any position of power or great responsibility,  so after the recent 4 years of being subject to:
     1.). Leaders that fall 'upward' (stairs)
     2.) Leaders that mumble though incoherent babble,  or that cackle uncontrollably

   I wanna CACKLE !  Plus I stumble sometimes.

   BUT:  You likely aren't depending on my condition, or attitude,  for your safety.

[RJSV]

But enough about myself:
   WHAT,  did you think,  about the tactic just mentioned,  methods used to derail or muddy the waters,  discounting the writer's points, by gling off into how you are 'confused'.

   Most folks can follow the gist of what my point is,  but those who disagree like to just claim confusion.

Ironically,  I was explaining THAT.  But, sorry,  sarcasm can get subtle.  You'll never get it, then.   Better just BLOCK, then !

[RJSV]

Now if (we) can climb down off the high horse,  and get back to business...(We maybe need a &DRAMA' Button to push, next to 'THANKS button'.):

   This whole business in this thread has a lot in common with Cap and trade history,  and I'm not prepared to argue effectively.  So,  yet again,  the simple referral to 'Cap and Trade issues' isn't sufficient,  to satisfy arguments here.

   Sorry,  I can't revisit every past situation,  to back my uneasy reception,  when asked to 'just trust".   I can only start,  by stating that I'm not feeling much TRUST,  here,  in the 'green electrons' arguments, (no matter how many readers declare 'confusion' over the statement that TRUST isn't present.

Thanks for reading,  and WHAT do you think ?

- - Rick-Jack

[Analog Kid]

Cap & trade you say?
This video, which I first ran across about 15 years ago, totally demolishes that concept:

[Andy Chee]

This, or course, is impossible. Because, as I hardly have to point out to most people reading this here on this forum, it's not as if they ran alternate sets of power cables to these buildings. The buildings are still receiving their power from ComEd, the regional power company.

If you deposit 1x  Ben Franklin into your savings account at your bank in your home town on Monday, then withdrawal 5x Andrew Jacksons from an automatic teller machine on Friday from the other side of the country, do you complain?

The same applies to energy trade.  The actual physical energy transport inter-connections, are less important than the energy accounting.

Of course the wrinkle in this analogy is that energy transport infrastructure does not behave completely the same way as money transport infrastructure. 

[Analog Kid]

Yes, if you read my responses here you'll see that I've come to accept that "green energy" is somewhat fungible, in somewhat the same way (not exactly) as money and other things. So by paying for green electricity, the City of Chicago is in fact powering its buildings with green electricity.

Even if some of those electrons actually come from gas, coal or nuclear power plants. Which is a tough concept to wrap one's head around. But I've pretty much given up my fight here.