Chicago powering its municipal buildings with renewable energy NOT!

[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.