Author Topic: Chicago powering its municipal buildings with renewable energy NOT!  (Read 4912 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Analog KidTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1328
  • Country: us
Re: Chicago powering its municipal buildings with renewable energy NOT!
« Reply #50 on: January 21, 2025, 09:04:33 pm »
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.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2025, 09:16:13 pm by Analog Kid »
 

Online racemaniac

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 41
  • Country: be
Re: Chicago powering its municipal buildings with renewable energy NOT!
« Reply #51 on: January 22, 2025, 07:53:43 am »
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.
 

Offline m k

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2710
  • Country: fi
Re: Chicago powering its municipal buildings with renewable energy NOT!
« Reply #52 on: January 22, 2025, 09:27:20 am »
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.
Advance-Aneng-Appa-AVO-Beckman-Danbridge-Data Tech-Fluke-General Radio-H. W. Sullivan-Heathkit-HP-Kaise-Kyoritsu-Leeds & Northrup-Mastech-OR-X-REO-Simpson-Sinclair-Tektronix-Tokyo Rikosha-Topward-Triplett-Tritron-YFE
(plus lesser brands from the work shop of the world)
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki

Offline Haenk

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1349
  • Country: de
Re: Chicago powering its municipal buildings with renewable energy NOT!
« Reply #53 on: January 22, 2025, 11:23:33 am »
The pooling concept (put something in, take something out) is simplified for a public press statement. Well worth a three+ page discussion.
 

Online TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9107
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Chicago powering its municipal buildings with renewable energy NOT!
« Reply #54 on: January 22, 2025, 11:40:29 am »
I’ve been trying to conceive a scheme that would meet his pedantic requirements, but they are all silly.
 
The following users thanked this post: Haenk

Offline Analog KidTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1328
  • Country: us
Re: Chicago powering its municipal buildings with renewable energy NOT!
« Reply #55 on: January 23, 2025, 12:22:00 am »
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.)
 

Offline Analog KidTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1328
  • Country: us
Re: Chicago powering its municipal buildings with renewable energy NOT!
« Reply #56 on: January 23, 2025, 02:47:53 am »
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
Quote
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?
 
The following users thanked this post: RJSV

Offline RJSV

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2768
  • Country: us
Re: Chicago powering its municipal buildings with renewable energy NOT!
« Reply #57 on: January 23, 2025, 04:44:55 am »
   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).

 

Offline Analog KidTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1328
  • Country: us
Re: Chicago powering its municipal buildings with renewable energy NOT!
« Reply #58 on: January 23, 2025, 05:46:56 am »
Clever and QUITTING,  this forum, now, (soon).

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

Online racemaniac

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 41
  • Country: be
Re: Chicago powering its municipal buildings with renewable energy NOT!
« Reply #59 on: January 23, 2025, 06:06:15 am »
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).
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki

Online TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9107
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Chicago powering its municipal buildings with renewable energy NOT!
« Reply #60 on: January 23, 2025, 06:51:02 am »
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.
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki

Offline Analog KidTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1328
  • Country: us
Re: Chicago powering its municipal buildings with renewable energy NOT!
« Reply #61 on: January 23, 2025, 07:12:39 am »
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.

Quote
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.
 

Offline Analog KidTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1328
  • Country: us
Re: Chicago powering its municipal buildings with renewable energy NOT!
« Reply #62 on: January 23, 2025, 07:19:08 am »
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.
 

Offline Haenk

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1349
  • Country: de
Re: Chicago powering its municipal buildings with renewable energy NOT!
« Reply #63 on: January 23, 2025, 08:23:46 am »
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.
 

Online racemaniac

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 41
  • Country: be
Re: Chicago powering its municipal buildings with renewable energy NOT!
« Reply #64 on: January 23, 2025, 08:43:09 am »
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?
« Last Edit: January 23, 2025, 08:48:34 am by racemaniac »
 
The following users thanked this post: Someone, TimFox, tooki

Offline Analog KidTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1328
  • Country: us
Re: Chicago powering its municipal buildings with renewable energy NOT!
« Reply #65 on: January 23, 2025, 04:31:32 pm »
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?
 

Offline Analog KidTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1328
  • Country: us
Re: Chicago powering its municipal buildings with renewable energy NOT!
« Reply #66 on: January 23, 2025, 04:34:29 pm »
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?
 

Online TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9107
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Chicago powering its municipal buildings with renewable energy NOT!
« Reply #67 on: January 23, 2025, 06:29:38 pm »
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.
 

Offline Analog KidTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1328
  • Country: us
Re: Chicago powering its municipal buildings with renewable energy NOT!
« Reply #68 on: January 23, 2025, 06:49:29 pm »
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)
« Last Edit: January 23, 2025, 06:51:30 pm by Analog Kid »
 

Online TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9107
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Chicago powering its municipal buildings with renewable energy NOT!
« Reply #69 on: January 23, 2025, 07:17:10 pm »
Verdure (greenness) depends on the generation, not so much the distribution.
 

Offline Analog KidTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1328
  • Country: us
Re: Chicago powering its municipal buildings with renewable energy NOT!
« Reply #70 on: January 23, 2025, 07:43:32 pm »
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?
 

Online TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9107
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Chicago powering its municipal buildings with renewable energy NOT!
« Reply #71 on: January 23, 2025, 07:46:34 pm »
If the green provider is legitimate and supplies you with your total demand, then you may claim that to whoever needs to know.
 

Offline Analog KidTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1328
  • Country: us
Re: Chicago powering its municipal buildings with renewable energy NOT!
« Reply #72 on: January 23, 2025, 07:58:08 pm »
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"?
« Last Edit: January 23, 2025, 07:59:44 pm by Analog Kid »
 

Online racemaniac

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 41
  • Country: be
Re: Chicago powering its municipal buildings with renewable energy NOT!
« Reply #73 on: January 24, 2025, 06:59:05 am »
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.
 
The following users thanked this post: vk6zgo, tooki

Offline Analog KidTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1328
  • Country: us
Re: Chicago powering its municipal buildings with renewable energy NOT!
« Reply #74 on: January 24, 2025, 09:25:23 pm »
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:
Quote
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:
Quote
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?

 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf